Stella is growing up .
===
More about the Fashion Week in London which Flomio technology helped to happen:
http://www.elleuk.com/fashion/andnews/henry-holland-ss-2016
http://www.forbes.com/sites/
===
Demwits prove they are more protective of Obama than against those who have attacked and will continue to attack America. (See 1 below.)
===
AIPAC may have lost its battle with Obama vis a vis The Iran Deal, but the entire nation has been losing ever since Obama took office. As noted above, Demwits have also chosen to support Iran, the same Iran that continues to slaughter Americans, imprison Americans and continues to spread and support terrorism aimed at Western values and lives.
Will/can AIPAC simply write off the Demwits until such time as they quit being the party of radicals, the party of Socialists, the party of lying crooks? Stay tuned. (See 2 below.)
I have suggested the next Middle East War will see Hezballah and Hamas attack Israel simultaneously and eventually Iran will come to their aid. (See 2a below.)
J Street is an organization that was formed to counter AIPAC. It is comprised, in my opinion, of misguided Jewish apologists. (See 2b below.)
===
Buddy Carter and his stand on Planned Parenting Funding of abortions. (See 3 below.)
The question for the Republican Party is will they actually do it or just pass bills saying they want to do so?
Personally I do not want my tax dollars going to support 'butchery' and it would appear this is something in which PP is engaged. I am not opposed to women having the right to an abortion but I do not wish to fund their choice.
Second, when you fund something you get more of it. This is true with respect to abortions, food stamps, poverty, bad education etc.. Money is a magnet and when more is spent to stop something or to accommodate something it is reasonable to believe you will get more. More begets more. It is a simple and bet-table axiom!
Out of guilt and passionate belief, Johnson started a "War on Poverty." We have spent trillions fighting poverty but because of stupid rules and regulations, restrictive legislation, inane Congressional solutions and overly aggressive Fed Policies, which remained in place too long, we knocked a lot of people out of work and more importantly, we did not focus on preparing anyone for re-employment and re-education
We provided money for them to sit on their behinds, watch TV and use cell phones, Obama gave them, and, more recently, Obama wants to increase the minimum wages which will eventually result in robots replacing more workers. There is a cost for everything in life, even a burial has a cost when life is over.
Politicians are interested in remaining in office and buying votes with their legislative efforts.
So Trump is right to point to these abuses, to a dysfunctional system and to the impact of special interest legislation. favoring their desires and needs, versus those of society at large. Now, I would like specificity as to how The Donald plans to "Make America Great Again" if not Greater. We have heard enough about his personal abilities, his wealth, his hair do. It is time for specifics, for putting flesh on the word skeleton.
Of course, if and when Donald does, it will make his target bigger and the press and media will have a field day but at some point he must get specific if he wishes to maintain a lead because I believe he has peaked and the press and media now want to focus on Carly. When they are over with her they will dial up someone else. It is what they do both to make money as well as control the debate which they then take advantage of for their own narrow purposes. God forbid the press and media should use their vaulted position to help their audience understand the many critical issues facing our nation and what each candidate will do about them, ask of us and what it legitimately costs.
If the public begins to make their demands known they will have more impact on who becomes the candidates of both parties. Time will tell whether they will do so.
I hear Trump tell us he is going to do this and he is going to that and he is going to bring us back to greatness as do the other candidates. Presidents can set a tone but without the support of the people and Congress they are mere words. Yes, Obama was effective in accomplishing his nefarious goals without the people, in fact, in spite of them and he ignored and or stiffed Congress and the Constitution Had Obama not been black, I doubt he could have gotten away with what he has, and had the Demwit Party not become so radical I believe Obama would have had a tougher go and finally, had Republicans in Congress not been so wimpy much of what Obama did would not have passed.
That is water over the bridge and Obama will soon be physically gone.
Our next next concern should be the impact Obama will have on any successor, regardless of party affiliation. The buzzards are going to roost on the next president's watch and they will narrow his/her flexibility and options. Obama's presidency will last long after he is out of office and though this is true of all presidents, in Obama's case the cost of Obamacare and his failed leadership in foreign policy etc. are going to be devastatingly costly and controlling. They will hang like lodestones around the neck of our next president and unless he/she is strong, disciplined, lucky, and articulate enough to rally the people to the message it will control his/her and our destiny for years to come.
Consequently, when I finally make my choice for the next nominee I will be thinking how they will be able to handle the'mess' they will inherit and that will go a long way toward shaping my selection because Obama's legacy will have a crippling and debilitating influence.
https://www.
===
A remarkable performance:http://boredomtherapy.com/
===
Off to Athens Ga. tomorrow.
===
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) By Melanie Phillips
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I See It: Game-changer: Iran’s involvement with 9/11Democrats in the US Senate this week blocked a vote on the Iran deal for the third time.The most remarkable aspect of this US surrender to Iran is that the Iranian regime is not some hypothetical threat. It has been perpetrating acts of war against Western interests for more than three decades – including playing a key role in the 9/11 attacks on America.That’s not just my opinion. It’s the view of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In a judgment that has received virtually no attention, federal Judge George B. Daniels found in December 2011 that Iran, with the participation of its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was directly and heavily involved in the 9/11 atrocities.This was previously suspected. The 9/11 Commission, having been presented with last-minute evidence from National Security Agency intercepts, found “strong evidence” that Iran had enabled al-Qaida members, including some of the future 9/11 hijackers, to travel in and out of Afghanistan before 9/11. In its 2004 report, it concluded: “We believe this topic requires further investigation by the US government.”The US government didn’t take up the suggestion. But some of the families of the 9/11 victims sought to enforce a measure of justice in the New York court against the atrocities’ perpetrators.In 2011, Daniels agreed that Iran, Khamenei, former Iranian president Ali Rafsanjani, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS), Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah and various Iranian government departments, government-owned companies and the central bank, had all provided direct and material aid and support to al-Qaida in carrying out the 9/11 attacks.The judge ruled that these should all pay the 47 plaintiffs more than $7 billion in damages. None paid up, causing another judge last year to order the seizure of a $500 million Manhattan tower block owned by Iran in order to distribute the property’s assets to the plaintiffs.The ruling by Daniels upheld evidence from 10 experts, including three former 9/11 commission staff members, and sworn testimony from three Iranian defectors who had been operatives of the Revolutionary Guards and the MOIS.One of these three, Abolghasem Mesbahi, who had been in charge of spying operations in western Europe, was said in the ruling to have testified in numerous prosecutions of Iranian and Hezbollah terrorists and to be “highly reliable and credible.”Mesbahi’s evidence was incendiary. He had been part of a Revolutionary Guards-MOIS task force that designed contingency plans for unconventional warfare against the US.These were aimed at breaking the American economy, crippling or disheartening the US, and disrupting the American social, military and political order – all without the risk of a head-to-head confrontation which Iran knew it would lose.This group devised a scheme to crash hijacked Boeing 747s into the World Trade Center, the White House and the Pentagon. The plan’s code name was “Shaitan dar Atash” (“Satan in flames”).The four aircraft hijacked by the 9/11 terrorists were Boeing 757 and 767s. Due to US trade sanctions, Iran has never possessed Boeing 757 or 767 aircraft. In 2000, said Mesbahi, Iran used front companies to obtain a Boeing 757-767-777 flight simulator which it hid at a secret site and where Mesbahi believed the 9/11 terrorists were trained.Falling out of favor with regime hardliners, Mesbahi went into hiding in Germany where he was placed in a witness protection program. He remained in touch with trusted Iranian friends who were helping protect his life. During the weeks before 9/11, Mesbahi received three coded messages from a source inside Iran’s government, indicating that Shaitan dar Atash had been activated.He tried repeatedly to alert German security officials. They didn’t believe him.The Daniels ruling also directly implicated Khamenei in the 9/11 plot. It stated that he formed a special intelligence apparatus under his direct control engaged in the planning, support and direction of terrorism. A May 14, 2001 memorandum from the overseer of this apparatus directly connected Iran to an impending major attack on the US.To ensure Iran’s involvement was concealed, Khamenei instructed intelligence operatives that, while expanding collaboration between Hezbollah and al-Qaida, they must restrict communications to existing contacts with al-Qaida’s second-in-command Ayman al Zawahiri and Imad Mughniyeh – Hezbollah’s terrorism chief and agent of Iran, arguably the most formidable terrorist the world has ever seen until his 2008 assassination, and now revealed in this court ruling as a key organizer of the 9/11 attacks.Despite the divide between Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, the ruling notes that they are ruthlessly pragmatic in making short term alliances against common enemies. In the early 1990s, the Iranian regime and Sudan’s Sunni leader Hassan al Turabi opened a united Shi’ite-Sunni front against the US and the west. In 1993, Osama bin Laden and al Zawahiri met Mughniyeh and Iranian officials in Khartoum. It was Mughniyeh, the ruling agrees, who turned bin Laden into an accomplished terrorist.Extensive cooperation in major global terrorist activities continued, including the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers housing complex in Saudi Arabia and the 1998 East Africa US embassy bombings. In 2000, the year in which al-Qaida was bombing the USS Cole, a US Defense Intelligence Agency analyst was alerting his superiors to a web of connections he had uncovered between al-Qaida, the Iranian intelligence agencies controlled by Khamenei and other terrorist groups.And around that very same time, Iran was facilitating the movement of the 9/11 hijackers in and out of Afghanistan – described in the ruling as “a specific terrorist travel operation” with unstamped passports and safe passage to Hezbollah contacts.Evidence to the court revealed that a “senior” Hezbollah operative who was known to have visited Saudi Arabia to coordinate activities there – and who was on the same November 2000 flight to Beirut as one of the 9/11 hijackers – was none other than Mughniyeh. It was he who organized the hijackers’ travel, obtained their passports and visas and oversaw the 9/11 operation’s security.The ruling handed down in December 2011 should have been a game-changer. It is on the website of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York under “rulings of special interest.” Read it for yourself, and then wonder why no one in the US government has acknowledged it.Every Democrat who is either supporting the Iran deal or refusing to allow Congress to even discuss it should publicly be held responsible by name for gifting $150 billion in unblocked revenue to the regime which played a key role in the 9/11 attacks on their country – and now threatens it openly with repeat attacks. And that includes the president of the United States.
2)
How Obama Out-Muscled Aipac
The pro-Israel lobby based its power on bipartisan influence. That didn’t work well in the deeply partisan fight over Iran.
Senator Richard Durbin is on a long list of Democrats who have dismayed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The same Richard Durbin who owes his political career to Aipac. In 1982, Aipac members supported Durbin, then an obscure college professor, against Paul Findley’s campaign for reelection to the House as retribution for Findley’s outspoken advocacy on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization. In 2015, Durbin not only supported the president’s Iran agreement against Aipac’s wishes, he also helped organize his fellow Democrats to defend it. “He has been a great disappointment to the pro-Israel community,” says Morris Amitay, a former executive director of Aipac.
Other disappointments include Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House minority whip, who led this year’s Aipac-funded trip of House Democratic freshmen to Israel; and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, who was an early sponsor of Iran sanctions legislation when he got to Congress. Earlier in the summer, Aipac’s leaders believed it was possible to win the support of red state Democratic senators such as Montana’s Jon Tester, Missouri’s Claire McCaskill, and North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp. (Republicans didn’t need to be persuaded to vote against Obama.) In the end, all of those Democrats supported the Iran agreement, and even helped block a vote on a resolution in the Senate to formally disapprove it.
These kinds of defeats aren’t supposed to happen to Aipac. Over the past 30 years, the organization has grown into the most powerful foreign policy lobby in Washington. Its fundraising prowess is fearsome. In a 2013 filing with the IRS, Aipac and a sister organization—the group that funds trips to Israel for members of Congress—recorded more than $70 million in contributions. Aipac also raised $30 million for a group that ran anti-deal television, radio, and Internet ads throughout the country this summer. Its initiatives, particularly on Iran sanctions, passed Congress with bipartisan, near unanimity in 2010 and 2012, over initial White House objections. It’s had success in securing military aid for Israel. On this, Obama has done more than his predecessors, financing the development of Israel’s Iron Dome rocket defense system on top of the annual $3 billion U.S. subsidy to the country.
Obama, however, is also one of the reasons Aipac couldn’t stop the Iran deal: Democrats feared the president more than they feared the pro-Israel lobby. “Aipac went to the Democrats and said, ‘We need your help as a friend.’ Obama said, ‘If you cross me you are going to make an enemy of my machine forever,’ ” says South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. “It’s one thing to lose an old friend, it’s sad. But you think twice before you make a new enemy.”
Most Democrats realized that, on this issue, they feared Obama more than they feared Aipac.
As it battled the deal, the organization never suspended its “friendly incumbent” rule, the implicit pledge that Aipac members wouldn’t direct pro-Israel donations to the opponents of lawmakers who have supported Israel. Several pro-Israel lobbyists and lawmakers say at no point in Aipac’s lobbying campaign did the organization directly threaten political retribution against Democrats who voted with Obama. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who as head of the Democratic National Committee backed the deal, told reporters: “Nobody in Aipac or anywhere directly threatened me.” Greg Rosenbaum, chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council and a member of Aipac’s Senate Club, for individuals who pledge to give at least $10,000 per year to pro-Israel candidates, said some Democrats “got a distinct impression that their funding would take a hit” from Jewish groups. But they didn’t fear a funded effort to unseat them.
The pro-deal lobbyists were more vocal and much more explicit in turning this into a loyalty-to-Obama issue. While the White House didn’t make threats directly, a litany of groups did. Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, two Democrats who oppose the deal, were featured on a truck-mounted billboard in New York City sponsored by MoveOn.org calling them “Most Likely to Start a War.” A pro-deal group known as Credo-Action derided Schumer as “warmonger Chuck” and called for blocking his path to becoming the party’s leader in the Senate upon the retirement of Harry Reid. As the Wall Street Journal reported, the White House in 2014 teamed up with the Ploughshares Fund—an antiwar foundation that spent more than $7 million in the last four years fighting anti-deal groups—to make the case for an Iran agreement.
The unprecedented level of personal engagement by the president, his senior staff, and several top cabinet officials and the amount of pressure from the administration plus its allies dwarfed whatever effort Aipac could mount. “My impression is that the administration did in support of pursuit of the deal what it has not done on any other issue, including Obamacare,” says Menendez. “When you make a call to arms and you don’t control what people who you call to arms say and do, you certainly have some responsibility.”
Administration officials who lobbied lawmakers on the deal said the activism by pro-deal groups had the effect of neutralizing whatever implicit threat senators and representatives might have detected from Aipac’s lobbying. Joel Rubin is president of the Washington Strategy Group and until recently the State Department’s legislative liaison to the House. A supporter of the deal, he says that if Aipac had made the argument “we will primary you”—that is, work to unseat a lawmaker—then “the emergence of money on the pro-deal side may have made it a trade-off, leveled the playing field, and gave political space to members to focus on the merits.”
Aipac was also unable to find any Democratic leaders to push for votes against the deal. The White House could count on Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in the House, and Durbin and Minority Leader Reid in the Senate. By contrast, Schumer did not press his colleagues to see things his way. “Pelosi and Durbin were whipping votes on this. Who was whipping votes among the Democrats against the deal? Nobody,” says Dan Senor, a former adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney who worked with some groups opposing the deal. “The pro-Israel movement didn’t have an inside play on this.”
And just as Aipac was scrounging for two more Democratic senators to vote against a filibuster in the Senate, Republican presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Texas Senator Ted Cruz headlined a rally on the steps of the Capitol—making opposition to the deal look even more partisan to wavering Democrats.
Aipac’s traditional strength has been its bipartisan generosity. Its members raised and donated money to Republicans and Democrats. But that ability to straddle both parties made Aipac less nimble in the partisan battle over the deal and its aftermath. Steve Rosen, a former foreign policy director for Aipac, put it like this: “Aipac’s enormity imposes constraints.” It can’t really write off Democratic deal supporters such as Wasserman Schultz and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Many pro-Israel lobbyists say it’s entirely unrealistic to expect Aipac to punish every Democrat who voted with Obama. They will still need Democratic votes for the remainder of Obama’s term on any number of bills designed to deter bad Iranian behavior and support Israel.
But retribution may still occur. If Aipac is perceived as toothless, many top donors may choose to give elsewhere. Since the Supreme Court overturned many of the rules on political giving in the 2012 Citizens United case, Rosen predicts, “There is likely to be some nonattributable super PAC activity to go after some Democrats, but not everyone who crossed them.” It will be those super PACs that will target the new Paul Findleys.
The question for Aipac now is navigating its relationship with the Democratic Party. Will there be a place inside Aipac’s big tent for Americans who think Obama’s deal enhanced Israel’s security? Or will Aipac cultivate the next Schumer and Menendez to take the seats of the likes of Tester and McCaskill?
Rubin says that in the past, Aipac nurtured a “bipartisan framework” and “could take positions with minimal risks to its standing. But that’s not the case anymore.” To Rubin and Obama’s strongest supporters, Aipac is no longer a truly bipartisan organization. Menendez, too, sees the lobby’s dilemma. “If Aipac just wanted to be inside the tent with the administration, they could have taken a much easier road,” he says. “The problem is being inside the tent doesn’t get you what you need.” Aipac must now choose whether it should battle the friends who defied it or repair the friendships that frayed this summer. It cannot do both.
2a)
Iran Expected To Use Missile Saturation
2a)
Iran Expected To Use Missile Saturation
The United States expects Iran to employ massive salvos
of missiles and rockets in attacks around the Middle East.
of missiles and rockets in attacks around the Middle East.
Leading U.S. analysts, including former senior officials, agreed that
Teheran has been hampered by its failure to amass an arsenal of guided
ballistic missiles. They said Iran was expected to overcome this through the
use of massive salvos against both military and civilian targets.
"Iran's ballistic missile forces are currently limited by their poor
accuracy, but Iran is making strides to overcome this limitation in two key
ways," the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance said. "Iran's growing
production of missiles suggests that Iran will use mass attacks and
saturation to overcome missile defenses and make up for limited accuracy."
Teheran has been hampered by its failure to amass an arsenal of guided
ballistic missiles. They said Iran was expected to overcome this through the
use of massive salvos against both military and civilian targets.
"Iran's ballistic missile forces are currently limited by their poor
accuracy, but Iran is making strides to overcome this limitation in two key
ways," the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance said. "Iran's growing
production of missiles suggests that Iran will use mass attacks and
saturation to overcome missile defenses and make up for limited accuracy."
2b)
3)
An Israeli leftist to J Street: Stop!
Last year I traveled to campuses across North America to share my experiences as an officer in the IDF – a role which entailed helping Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and Gaza with humanitarian aid. My experiences as a speaker were overwhelmingly positive as I was able to find common ground with many young people of diverse backgrounds and political viewpoints, but there were some unfortunate exceptions.
During one of my speaking events, a student raised her hand to ask a question. The young woman wanted to know what I thought about J-Street and other “left-wing” Jewish groups which criticize Israel, given that I myself am a leftist Israeli.
Assuming she was seeking an honest answer, I told her the truth; “I am very uneasy about their work…” I started, but she interrupted: “Well, I’m the head of the J Street club on my campus and what you don’t understand is that we see Israel as our younger sister. We want our younger sister to be better — we love her and care about her.”
Disappointed by her lack of interest in dialogue, and offended by her analogy, I replied: “So according to you, if I love my younger sister, I need to go around the United States and tell everyone how bad she is? How she doesn’t know what’s good for her? How we must collectively pressure her? And if I truly love my sister, I should tell my parents to cut her off financially? I should publicize her every mistake and defame her on every platform I can? Or if I really care, should I instead work together with her?”
Unfortunately, this verbal exchange is symptomatic of a greater illness among some who identify with the American Jewish left, and this illness has at its core the delusion that Israel is American Jewry’s younger sister. While the woman who asked me that question would like to believe that Israelis don’t know what’s best for their future, it is actually people like her who do not fully comprehend the problems that Israel faces.
Hen presenting to students at Swarthmore College
As an Israeli who has aligned myself for years with Zionist-left parties like Meretz and supported every peace process, I am extremely upset with groups like J Street for perpetrating a faux-progressive approach to the Middle East that mimics the paternalism of 20th century imperialists. They feel that they are entitled to tell us, Israelis, what to do. When we think differently, they will arrogantly dismiss us as people who do not know what is best for our own welfare. Why is it that we, the people who have suffered through wars, served in the military, supported peace agreements, and protested on the streets to effect change – why on earth would we be seen as less capable than those living across the world in the relative safety and comfort of America?
This patronizing approach of some self-proclaimed “progressive” Jewish groups is truly astonishing. They claim that they are “pro-Israel,” yet they consistently echo the opinions of pro-BDS pundits, and regurgitate talking points based on anything but progressive values. Is that pro-Israel or progressive? Just read the statements on their website and social media platforms.
The most recent and prominent example of this twisted reality has surfaced in the debate surrounding the Iran Nuclear Deal. The vast majority of Israelis, from left to right, agree that this is a non-partisan issue: the world should not be giving $150 billion (10 times the size of Israel’s defense budget) to the world’s worst violator of human rights, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism – a regime which leads chants at government rallies of “Death to America! Death to England! Death to Israel!”.
Yet J Street ferociously promotes the deal, in opposition to numerous Democratic members of Congress and Israel’s Zionist Camp (whom J Street regularly invites to speak at their conferences). When faced with this dissonance, J Street attempts to justify its position by pointing to a minority of Israeli security officials who have criticized Israel’s policy on the issue. But most of these officials also agree that the deal itself is deeply flawed. J Street is manipulative even in the way it portrays Israelis who supposedly support J Street’s views.
Like all Israelis, I am the product of a miracle. A miracle happened to my family in 1951 when they were in the middle of a life-changing crisis; they were expelled from Arab countries (North Africa and Iraq) because they were Jews. The miracle was that for the first time in 2000 years, there was a Jewish state to take them home. This is the same miracle that is happening today to French Jews escaping antisemitism – and it is the same miracle that will save many other Jews in the future. It should be clear that Israel is not only here to serve American Jews. I was in the army for five years defending Israel and working side by side with Palestinians.Today I speak up in the public arena because I want to see a better future for Israel and its neighbors. Every day I breathe this country. I feel this country in every bone of my body and with every fiber of my soul.
My message to J Street is this: if you are truly pro-Israel, stop patronizing us. Stop lecturing us, publicly defaming us, and using a foreign government to pressure our democratically elected government from thousands of miles away. If you love us and want to support us – then listen to our voices and speak to us as equals. And every once in a while, since you profess to be “pro-Israel,” perhaps you can say something nice about my country.
J Street, if you continue on this disingenuous, anti-democratic path, I assure you that you will fail. But don’t worry, we will be here to welcome you home when you do — After all, that’s what older sisters are for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)
| DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD Rep. Buddy Carter |
This week, the House acted to defund Planned Parenthood and hold them accountable for their horrific actions that have been revealed in recent videos. First, the House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, with my support, to require any health care practitioner to preserve the life of a child born alive in the case of an abortion as they would any other child. The atrocious videos of Planned Parenthood involve discussions of instances where a baby is born ‘intact’ during the course of an abortion. The legislation provides that if a born-alive child is cut open for body parts or if there are other actions taken to kill the child, the punishment is first degree murder. Murder is exactly what these acts are and the offenders must pay for their crime. Next, I supported legislation to defund Planned Parenthood for one year. While I believe taxpayer funds should never be used on abortions, it is especially unacceptable when these illegal and horrific practices are happening. Federal funding for abortion has been illegal since 1976 yet Planned Parenthood continues to get away with it. I’m proud this legislation would put an end to Planned Parenthood’s continued blatant disregard for the law. While I am pleased that the house passed this legislation this week, our ultimate goal is not only to defund Planned Parenthood for a year, but to completely eliminate the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. Additionally, these crimes must be investigated and the illegal actions must face criminal penalties. I urged federal law enforcement to execute a full criminal investigation into the alleged actions on the House floor this week. The House will continue our own investigations, including investigations I am participating in as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This fight is not over and I will not waver in my support for the unborn. Below is a snapshot of the legislation the House has passed and is working on to accomplish this. PASSED BY THE HOUSE: H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act This bill would prohibit federal funds from being used for abortions. PASSED BY THE HOUSE: H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act This bill would ban abortions nationwide 20 weeks after conception except in the cases of incest and rape. PASSED BY THE HOUSE: H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 This bill would impose a one-year moratorium on all federal funding to Planned Parenthood and any of its affiliates while investigations are conducted. PASSED BY THE HOUSE: H.R. 3504, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act This bill requires any health care practitioner to preserve the life of a child born alive in the case of an abortion as they would any other child. COSPONSORED: H.R. 426, the Sanctity of Human Life Act This bill would declare that life begins at conception. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
No comments:
Post a Comment