P-P-P-please! Must read link:

Pelosi Suggests Probe of Funding Sources Behind Opposition to Mosque Near Ground Zero

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/18/pelosi-calls-mosque-debate-zoning-issue-says-new-yorkers-decide/

Manhattan Mosque Debate Renews Concern Over Stalled Sept. 11 Trial

With President Obama lighting up a national political debate over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque by appearing to support the project during a White House dinner last Friday, one group representing the families of Sept. 11 victims accused the president of mixing up his priorities.


"He should be focusing on putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts on trial and allowing them to plead guilty as they said they wanted to do, rather than lecturing the families of those firefighters and their children about religious tolerance at ground zero," said Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America. Burlingame's brother was one of the pilots killed on Sept. 11, 2001.


This is an exerpt from the following article on FoxNews.com- below is the complete article:
 
             The inflamed debate over a proposed mosque near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan has renewed concern over the lack of public movement toward what was billed as a landmark trial for five alleged co-conspirators in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

             The case against confessed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others has idled since Attorney General Eric Holder announced it last November. His decision to try the defendants in federal court in New York City was called into question by local officials and subsequently placed under review by the Obama administration. Months later, no decision has been announced regarding the date, location or venue for the trial -- earlier this summer, Fox News learned an announcement is not expected until after the November election.  With President Obama lighting up a national political debate over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque by appearing to support the project during a White House dinner last Friday, one group representing the families of Sept. 11 victims accused the president of mixing up his priorities.

         "He should be focusing on putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts on trial and allowing them to plead guilty as they said they wanted to do, rather than lecturing the families of those firefighters and their children about religious tolerance at ground zero," said Debra Burlingame, co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America. Burlingame's brother was one of the pilots killed on Sept. 11, 2001.
Former New York Gov. George Pataki told Fox News that the families of Sept. 11 victims and all Americans "deserve an answer as to why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed still hasn't been brought to justice."
        "The focus has been on the mosque, but what about those war criminals who attacked us on Sept. 11. Why haven't they been tried and convicted as they should be?" he said.

        An Obama spokesman clarified on Saturday that the president was not explicitly supporting the project, merely stating that the developers had the right to pursue it. Then the White House said the president was not backing off his original comments -- the set of explanations added to confusion about the president's stance and fueled criticism from Republicans, who had already stated their opposition to the mosque project.
      The debate gathered steam as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came out in opposition to the project and then as Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie warned that the issue was becoming a "political football" for both parties.
Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have tried to battle the growing opposition to the New York City project.
Mahdi Bray, director of Muslim American Society Freedom, warned during a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., that there was a "growing pattern" of mosques being opposed in the United States -- and not just near Ground Zero.

      "We are determined to defend religious rights and freedom," he said Tuesday. "We do believe that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is sacrosanct."
Meanwhile, questions remain over the Sept. 11 trial.
         Holder told Congress in March that a final decision on the trial venue was "weeks away." But during one of his last news conferences before the latest congressional recess, the attorney general said "no decision" had been made.
      "The conversations we are having are ongoing," Holder said.
None of the five defendants being held in U.S. military custody have been charged. Complicating the case, the discovery of tapes depicting the interrogation at a secret prison of one of the defendants, Ramzi Binalshibh, was revealed Tuesday.

          Fox News confirmed that the tapes were found at the CIA in 2007. They could throw a wrench in the trial process by revealing evidence about the defendant's mental state and treatment at the Moroccan-run prison.
However, a U.S. official downplayed the significance of the tape, telling Fox News they only show "a guy sitting at a desk answering questions years earlier."
"They don't show anything more than that," the official said.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/17/manhattan-mosque-debate-renews-concern-stalled-sept-trial/

             

 
 

The Fight Still Continues...

Congress Passes Health Care Bill
Despite overwhelming public opposition, Washington D.C. Democrats steamrolled the American people and the citizens of Colorado this week by ramming the health care bill through.
I support Colorado Attorney General John Suthers joining thirteen other states in a lawsuit to block Obama Care.
The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government only enumerated powers. All other powers are expressly left to the states and their people. In the health care legislation passed in Washington, Congress is attempting, for the first time in our history, to use the interstate commerce power to regulate citizens who choose not to engage in a commercial activity, by forcing them to buy insurance. Never before in our history has Congress mandated citizens to purchase a product or service as a condition of living in this great country.
I also support Jon Caldara from the Independence Institute who is working to bring forward an amendment to the Colorado Constitution to preserve our right to health care choice.

I am a small business owner who struggles with the cost of providing insurance to my employees and see their struggles affording their match to buy insurance.

Government run health care will not produce low cost quality care. We must move in the direction of our free market to succeed in solving our health care cost issues. Lasik eye surgery is the best most recent example of our free market succeeding in lowering costs and increasing accessibility and increasing quality.
Signed:
Our State's Senator

Progressives are pitting kids against their parents in order to get elected

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4015237/the-one-thing-212

The government has your baby's DNA By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent

(CNN) -- When Annie Brown's daughter, Isabel, was a month old, her pediatrician asked Brown and her husband to sit down because he had some bad news to tell them: Isabel carried a gene that put her at risk for cystic fibrosis.

While grateful to have the information -- Isabel received further testing and she doesn't have the disease -- the Mankato, Minnesota, couple wondered how the doctor knew about Isabel's genes in the first place. After all, they'd never consented to genetic testing.

It's simple, the pediatrician answered: Newborn babies in the United States are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent, according to Brad Therrell, director of the National Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center.

In many states, such as Florida, where Isabel was born, babies' DNA is stored indefinitely, according to the resource center.

Many parents don't realize their baby's DNA is being stored in a government lab, but sometimes when they find out, as the Browns did, they take action. Parents in Texas, and Minnesota have filed lawsuits, and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate about whether it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint to be in the government's possession.

"We were appalled when we found out," says Brown, who's a registered nurse. "Why do they need to store my baby's DNA indefinitely? Something on there could affect her ability to get a job later on, or get health insurance."

According to the state of Minnesota's Web site, samples are kept so that tests can be repeated, if necessary, and in case the DNA is ever need to help parents identify a missing or deceased child. The samples are also used for medical research.

Art Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, says he understands why states don't first ask permission to screen babies for genetic diseases. "It's paternalistic, but the state has an overriding interest in protecting these babies," he says.

However, he added that storage of DNA for long periods of time is a different matter.

"I don't see any reason to do that kind of storage," Caplan says. "If it's anonymous, then I don't care. I don't have an issue with that. But if you keep names attached to those samples, that makes me nervous."

DNA given to outside researchers

Genetic testing for newborns started in the 1960s with testing for diseases and conditions that, if undetected, could kill a child or cause severe problems, such as mental retardation. Since then, the screening has helped save countless newborns.

Over the years, many other tests were added to the list. Now, states mandate that newborns be tested for anywhere between 28 and 54 different conditions, and the DNA samples are stored in state labs for anywhere from three months to indefinitely, depending on the state.

Brad Therrell, who runs the federally funded genetic resource consortium, says parents don't need to worry about the privacy of their babies' DNA.

"The states have in place very rigid controls on those specimens," Therrell says. "If my children's DNA were in one of these state labs, I wouldn't be worried a bit."

The specimens don't always stay in the state labs. They're often given to outside researchers -- sometimes with the baby's name attached.

According to a study done by the state of Minnesota, more than 20 scientific papers have been published in the United States since 2000 using newborn blood samples.

The researchers do not have to have parental consent to obtain samples as long as the baby's name is not attached, according to Amy Gaviglio, one of the authors of the Minnesota report. However, she says it's her understanding that if a researcher wants a sample with a baby's name attached, consent first must be obtained from the parents.

More Empowered Patient news and advice

Scientists have heralded this enormous collection of DNA samples as a "gold mine" for doing research, according to Gaviglio.

"This sample population would be virtually impossible to get otherwise," says Gaviglio, a genetic counselor for the Minnesota Department of Health. "Researchers go through a very stringent process to obtain the samples. States certainly don't provide samples to just anyone."

Brown says that even with these assurances, she still worries whether someone could gain access to her baby's DNA sample with Isabel's name attached.

"I know the government says my baby's data will be kept private, but I'm not so sure. I feel like my trust has been taken," she says.

Parents don't give consent to screening

Brown says she first lost trust when she learned that Isabel had received genetic testing in the first place without consent from her or her husband.

"I don't have a problem with the testing, but I wish they'd asked us first," she says.

Since health insurance paid for Isabel's genetic screening, her positive test for a cystic fibrosis gene is now on the record with her insurance company, and the Browns are concerned this could hurt her in the future.

"It's really a black mark against her, and there's nothing we can do to get it off there," Brown says. "And let's say in the future they can test for a gene for schizophrenia or manic-depression and your baby tests positive -- that would be on there, too."

Brown says if the hospital had first asked her permission to test Isabel, now 10 months old, she might have chosen to pay for it out of pocket so the results wouldn't be known to the insurance company.

Caplan says taking DNA samples without asking permission and then storing them "veers from the norm."

"In the military, for instance, they take and store DNA samples, but they tell you they're doing it, and you can choose not to join if you don't like it," he says.

What can parents do

In some states, including Minnesota and Texas, the states are required to destroy a baby's DNA sample if a parent requests it. Parents who want their baby's DNA destroyed are asked to fill out this form in Minnesota and this form in Texas.

Parents in other states have less recourse, says Therrell, who runs the genetic testing group. "You'd probably have to write a letter to the state saying, 'Please destroy my sample,'" he says.

He adds, however, that it's not clear whether a state would necessarily obey your wishes. "I suspect it would be very difficult to get those states to destroy your baby's sample," he says.

CNN's John Bonifield and Jennifer Bixler contributed to this report

This is so refreshing! Watch & enjoy!

This is wonderfully patriotic! What a treat! National Anthem at Eagles Game - Amazing
Finally, somebody got it right!
Tired of all those "recording stars" singing the national anthem?

Here's what our military can do. If this doesn't put a lump in your throat, and fill your heart with PRIDE, you need to move to another country.

Reagan Audio - Don't say we weren't warned

This is an amazing speech given by Ronald Regan BEFORE he was even President. We believe he was right on! Below is the transcript...the last sentence is CHILLING. This looks long, but trust us, you'll be glad you either listened to the link or read the transcript! Try BOTH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx3ycMDTfw4


REAGAN: Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program. There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this trip is with us and at the moment is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it.
We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this. So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand said, if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, they can we can expand the program after that. Well, let's see what the socialists themselves had to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.
Well, we can't say we haven't been warned. James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other. But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go. This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.
This freedom was built into our government with safeguards.
We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities. What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen, even if we believe that he's on our side to begin with, write to strengthen his hand. Write those letters now. Call your friends and tell them to write. If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country... until one day as Norman Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.