Mitt Romney's Inflammatory Comments on Iran

In lieu of having facts or any ideas about how to fix the multitude of issues that face this country our Republican candidates, have decided to muddy the waters with fiery comments regarding Iran at a time when President Obama is trying to give diplomacy and sanctions a chance to work..

Former Governor Mitt Romney and current Republican candidate for President of the United States has decided to invoke E.S.P. and claim that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program in an op-ed piece he wrote for yesterday's Washington Post. This claim has come in the face of the facts as presented by the entire U.S. intelligence community and the IAEA inspectors.

According to Mitt Romney :

Republican Presidential Candidate
Mitt Romney 

America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake. The same Islamic fanatics who took our diplomats hostage are racing to build a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama, America’s most feckless president since Carter, has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets in the White House, the Iranians are making rapid progress toward obtaining the most destructive weapons in the history of the world. [...]

Until Iran ceases its nuclear-bomb program, I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must.

This kind of rhetoric is not at all helpful. Mr. Romney is neither privy to U.S. national intelligence, nor any communications between the U.S. and it's allies regarding Iran. Based on this, I'm not sure where he received his facts from.

Today, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy said Mitt Romney's gibes at President Obama's Iran policy were irresponsible.

"This means to an Iranian, if you will wait until another few months and there is a change in the White House, then maybe there will be trouble, so the lesson is, let's redouble our efforts to do it as quickly as we can," Halevy said in an interview with The Huffington Post posted Wednesday. "In the effort to demolish the president he is making the situation worse."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has clashed with Obama on Israel-Palestinian issues, said in a conference call organized by the Democratic National Committee that the president's efforts to isolate Iran have paid off and do not merit the GOP shots.

"Some of the Republican candidates for president have been misrepresenting the president’s unwavering commitment to Israel and stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon," he said. "And I find, on something as important as this, when the safety of millions of Israelis and of the whole world hangs in the balance, to be so blatantly political is something that is just so uncalled for."

Romney is not the only GOP candidate to slam Obama for his handling of Iran. He and Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of representatives, and Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, made such attacks the centerpieces of their addresses this week to the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The war hawks need to step back and allow those who are intimately familiar with the situation handle it. I would think President Obama and Mr. Halevy would know more than all of the armchair generals out their including our Republican candidates. War is not a minor issue and must be used sparingly.

Limbaugh's Comments About Sandra Fluke...Beyond His Radio Show

I have to admit that I am appalled by ongoing narrow-minded, ignorant comments regarding Sandra Fluke.  I find the endless tweets, facebook posts, and media commentary seemingly backing up or at the least, standing up for Rush Limbaugh, to be absolutely beyond comprehension.

The distasteful commentary is exclusively coming from men which I find absurd.  These individuals, almost to the commentator, clearly made no effort to read Ms. Fluke's congressional transcript.  Their statements are almost entirely the regurgitation of Limbaugh's words with some of their own personal twists.  Not only are these people dishonest as the transcript is readily available to read online.  I even posted it with my opinion piece done this past Friday.  I have posted the video version of her testimony below for those that are interested.

Sandra Fluke opening testimony before Congress

Sandra Fluke's testimony did not involve the discussion of her's or anyone else's sex life, not even a bit.  Nor did it discuss having the American taxpayer pay for birth control in any way shape or form.  Her comments revolved around women's medical issues that could be prevented or cured through the use of a birth control regimen.  Having insurance companies provide the coverage for birth control is preferable and likely desirable for them.  The government is not paying for this coverage.  Aside from the obvious pregnancy prevention benefits, birth control medications are exceptionally good for controlling terrible acne conditions in girls, helping to regulate debilitating periods, and assist in the prevention of ovarian cysts to name just a few of its uses.  These are things that men have no business in debating or commenting on.

Conservative talk show host
Rush Limbaugh

When women attempt to take a stand on the use of birth control, it gets them unjustly labeled a prostitute or a slut as we have just witnessed.  Why, I have to ask, is this deemed appropriate in any society, but especially ours?

Rush has since apologized for his disrespectful and disgusting comments however Ms. Fluke said Limbaugh’s apology did nothing to change the corrosive tone of the debate over health care coverage and   that Americans have to decide whether they want to support companies that continue to advertise on his program. AOL and Tax Resolution Services Co. on Monday became the eighth and ninth advertisers to leave Limbaugh’s three-hour show and at least one radio station dropped the program as he sought to stem the exodus of advertisers and fellow conservatives declined to offer him support.

Maybe this issue will bring about a much needed change in the right-wing's attitude toward those that don't buy in to the conservative hate rhetoric that we are hearing today.

My hope is that we can get back to creating jobs, improving our economy, getting our national debt under control and strengthening our foreign policy instead of dismantling women's health care.

John McCain Is the First Senator to Call for Bombing Syria - Atlantic Wire

Atlantic Wire - Sen. John McCain will call on a repeat performance of the kind of military operation that dislodgedMuammar Qaddafi from Libya in Syria, asking the U.S. military to begin air strikes to protect Syrian opposition forces. In remarks leaked first to Foreign Policy's Josh Rogin, McCain's speech on the Senate floor on Monday will argue, "The kinds of mass atrocities that NATO intervened in Libya to prevent in Benghazi are now a reality in Homs."

Senator John McCain - (R-AZ)

RELATED: The Story of a Man Behind Syria's Protest Anthem

McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also will add, "The ultimate goal of airstrikes should be to establish and defend safe havens in Syria, especially in the north, in which opposition forces can organize and plan their political and military activities against Assad." He concludes, "If Assad manages to cling to power -- or even if he manages to sustain his slaughter for months to come, with all of the human and geopolitical costs that entails -- it would be a strategic and moral defeat for the United States. We cannot, we must not, allow this to happen."

RELATED: Seven Protesters Killed in Syria During the Holiday

Calling for air strikes is the logical next step for McCain, who just a couple weeks ago used similar rhetoric in arguing for arming the Syrian rebels. With Sen. Lindsay Graham at his side, McCain said then, "I believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement." He added that "if Western countries continue to fully support Syria's opposition, then in the end a large-scale civil war will erupt and there will be no way to thus avoid the possibility of foreign armed intervention." Well, it seems like it's too late for that now, as recent violence suggests that a full scale civil war has probably already erupted.

Rush Limbaugh Continues to Attack Sandra Fluke!

Rush Limbaugh

March 2, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh's reprehensible behavior continued today against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke.

On Wednesday Limbaugh emphatically stated on his radio show that Fluke was promoting casual sex. "What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic] who goes before a congressional committee   and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex -- what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute," Limbaugh said. "She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."

Instead of apologizing for his disgusting mean-spirited comments, on Thursday Limbaugh concluded his sexist rant by insisting that if women want their contraception covered, they should post pornographic videos of themselves online. "So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal," he said. "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

To make matters worse, the Republican presidential candidates took very lame positions on Limbaugh's comments.  

Rick Santorum said,  radio host Rush Limbaugh was "being absurd" when he suggested a college student record sex tapes and share them in exchange for contraception.  Santorum told CNN on Friday that Limbaugh is an "entertainer" taking an absurd point of view.

After repeatedly avoiding the issue, Mitt Romney on Friday evening finally stated, “I'll just say this which is it’s not the language I would have used.  I’m  focusing on the issues I think are significant in the country today and that’s why I’m here talking about jobs and Ohio.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) couldn't seem find the time to respond himself. "The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel in a statement. House Democrats have raised $1.1 million off the "War on Women" campaign.  

If the Democrats did raise $1.1 million from this issue then the blame lies completely on the Republicans.  If they took a reasonable stand against this kind of bad behavior they may have been able to stave off this firestorm, but as it stands they are getting what they deserve.

Sandra Fluke

As you will see in Ms. Fluke's transcript below, nothing she said warranted any of the comments that have thrown at her.  Now is the time to let Sandra Fluke know you stand and with her against this vicious attack by this deplorable right wing mouthpiece Rush Limbaugh and the spineless Republican candidates, Romney and Santorum, that he supports. 

TRANSCRIPT OF SANDRA FLUKE'S TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS

Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women’s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation. My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school. I’m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today.

Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.

When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard.

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.

You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s not true. Women’s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without. How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?

These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor’s office. Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32 years old. As she put it: “If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally
unsubsidized by my school wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.” Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child.

Perhaps you think my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can’t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn’t been willing to cover her medication. Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome. She’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously. This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered, and she assumed that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handled all of women’s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover
something like that, something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health. As one student put it, “this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.” These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.

In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that, in the 21st century, anyone thinks it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on. Thank you.

Iran Hold Parliamentary Election - BBC

BBC News - Voters in Iran are taking part in elections to choose the 290 members of the legislative chambers, the Majlis.

It is the first poll since the 2009 presidential elections, which the opposition says were rigged in favour of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Friday's election will be fought by a
number of rival conservative groups 

It is a contest between his supporters and hard-liners close to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The opposition Green Movement is not taking part. Its leaders have been placed under house arrest.

The authorities are urging voters to come out in large numbers, with some posters in the capital Tehran even warning that a low turnout might encourage foreign powers to launch military strikes.

But correspondents say even some of President Ahmadinejad's supporters are quietly calling for a boycott.

Mr Ahmadinejad has fallen out with Mr Khamenei in recent months, and some of his supporters complain that their candidates have been barred from standing.

The respective strength of the different conservative camps after this poll will define the balance of power for what may be a much more important vote - the 2013 presidential election, says BBC Iran correspondent James Reynolds.

However the results of the elections are unlikely to change Iran's stance on its controversial nuclear programme, he adds.

International sanctions imposed over Iran's nuclear programme have been having an effect on the economy.

Obama and the Koran: Was it wrong to say sorry?

By P.J. Crowley, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State

Being the leader of the free world means never having to say you are sorry.

President Obama did not apologise to Pakistan after a raid
accidentally killed 24 Pakistani soldiers stationed along the Afghan border

That appears to be the view of Republican presidential aspirants Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. All three have been critical ofthe apology offered last week by US President Barack Obama following the Koran-burning incident in Afghanistan.

Mr Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, termed the apology an "outrage."

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney thought it would be "very difficult for the American people to countenance". Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested Mr Obama's contrition "showed weakness".

The fourth remaining candidate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, long ago advocated a US withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Koran-burning is not likely to change his mind.

Are these comments by Mr Gingrich, Mr Romney and Mr Santorum - each vying to unseat the president - all about scoring political points?

Let's hope so. The candidates' arguments don't feel wrong so much as dated: debating points from the Cold War era, 30 years ago.

Mr Gingrich, who has suggested it is impossible to "fix Afghanistan", instead demanded an apology from Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.

He wants contrition from the Afghan leader for the deaths of at least six Nato service members, most thought to be American. The latest two deaths came on Thursday, more than a week after the Koran-burning sparked such outrage. Once again, the deaths were thought to be deadly retribution by Afghan security personnel.

To be fair, the Koran incident has put the unpredictable President Karzai between a rock and a hard place, with little political capital in the bank.

No doubt there should be an Afghan apology as well as an American one - particularly if the Afghan government expects the US Congress and the American people to continue to support this fragile and frustrating relationship.

'Not deliberate'

The fact that President Obama went first is usually considered, well, leadership.

In the Republican debates Mr Romney said he would make decisions regarding Afghanistan based on "conditions on the ground determined by the generals".

The first US official to recognise the danger of the Koran-burning and issue an apology was not President Obama, but Gen John Allen, the commander of US and international forces in Afghanistan.

Gen Allen and his diplomatic counterpart, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, undoubtedly welcomed the political apologies that came from President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

They understand that the future of the US-Afghan relationship is at stake and with it the sustainability of the counter-terrorism mission in Afghanistan (and from Afghanistan into Pakistan). Those are operations that Mr Romney supports.

Read the rest of the story (BBC News)

Blunt Amendment "Respect for Rights of Conscience" Defeated!

Roy Blunt - R(MO)

March 1, 2012 - In a show of logic and common sense, the United States Senate defeated a bill proposed by Senate Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri today that as an amendment to a submitted highway bill would have given not only religious groups but any employer the ability to be exempted from the birth control coverage requirement mandated by 2010 healthcare law due to moral objections.

After further review of this proposed amendment it would have potentially placed any other covered procedure or medication on the chopping block due to objections of conscience.  This would have been a tragic situation were it not for cooler heads in the Senate prevailing.

The 51 to 48 vote to kill the bill, was largely along party lines.  The exceptions were Democrats, Robert Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska who voted for the amendment, and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine who voted against the amendment.

Even after President Obama offered to change the mandate to require insurance companies to offer birth control free of charge, instead of requiring employers and religious organizations to offer it, Republican's insisted on submitting this bill.  By leaving healthcare up to conscience, they would be putting healthcare options completely in the employers hands.  Who is to say what would be exempted due to a moral objection and what would be exempted due to purely financial reasons?  In the end the employee is the one that would suffer at the hands of employer greed or religious belief regardless of the beliefs of the employee.

Fortunately, justice was served today.

Full Text of the Blunt Amendment

SEC. __. RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.

(a) Findings and Purposes.–

(1) FINDINGS.–Congress finds the following:

(A) As Thomas Jefferson declared to New London Methodists in 1809, “[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority”.

(B) Jefferson’s statement expresses a conviction on respect for conscience that is deeply embedded in the history and traditions of our Nation and codified in numerous State and Federal laws, including laws on health care.

(C) Until enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148, in this section referred to as “PPACA”), the Federal Government has not sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers, purchasers of insurance, plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, such as individual or institutional health care providers.

(D) PPACA creates a new nationwide requirement for health plans to cover “essential health benefits” and “preventive services” (including a distinct set of “preventive services for women”), delegating to the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to provide a list of detailed services under each category, and imposes other new requirements with respect to the provision of health care services.

(E) While PPACA provides an exemption for some religious groups that object to participation in Government health programs generally, it does not allow purchasers, plan sponsors, and other stakeholders with religious or moral objections to specific items or services to decline providing or obtaining coverage of such items or services, or allow health care providers with such objections to decline to provide them.

(F) By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates in PPACA jeopardize the ability of individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.

(2) PURPOSES.–The purposes of this section are–

(A) to ensure that health care stakeholders retain the right to provide, purchase, or enroll in health coverage that is consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions, without fear of being penalized or discriminated against under PPACA; and

(B) to ensure that no requirement in PPACA creates new pressures to exclude those exercising such conscientious objection from health plans or other programs under PPACA.

(b) Respect for Rights of Conscience.–

(1) IN GENERAL.–Section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 42 U.S.C. 18022(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

“(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES.–

“(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS.–A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because–

“(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or

“(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.

“(B) FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.–Nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall be construed to require an individual or institutional health care provider, or authorize a health plan to require a provider, to provide, participate in, or refer for a specific item or service contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, a health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide timely or other access to items or services under this title (or any amendment made by this title) or to fulfill any other requirement under this title because it has respected the rights of conscience of such a provider pursuant to this paragraph.

“(C) NONDISCRIMINATION IN EXERCISING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE.–No Exchange or other official or entity acting in a governmental capacity in the course of implementing this title (or any amendment made by this title) shall discriminate against a health plan, plan sponsor, health care provider, or other person because of such plan’s, sponsor’s, provider’s, or person’s unwillingness to provide coverage of, participate in, or refer for, specific items or services pursuant to this paragraph.

“(D) CONSTRUCTION.–Nothing in subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be construed to permit a health plan or provider to discriminate in a manner inconsistent with subparagraphs (B) and (D) of paragraph (4).

“(E) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.–The various protections of conscience in this paragraph constitute the protection of individual rights and create a private cause of action for those persons or entities protected. Any person or entity may assert a violation of this paragraph as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding.

“(F) REMEDIES.–

“(i) FEDERAL JURISDICTION.–The Federal courts shall have jurisdiction to prevent and redress actual or threatened violations of this paragraph by granting all forms of legal or equitable relief, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, costs, and attorney fees.

“(ii) INITIATING PARTY.–An action under this paragraph may be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States, or by any person or entity having standing to complain of a threatened or actual violation of this paragraph, including, but not limited to, any actual or prospective plan sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering a plan, any actual or prospective purchaser or beneficiary of a plan, and any individual or institutional health care provider.

“(iii) INTERIM RELIEF.–Pending final determination of any action under this paragraph, the court may at any time enter such restraining order or prohibitions, or take such other actions, as it deems necessary.

“(G) ADMINISTRATION.–The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this paragraph and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.

“(H) ACTUARIAL EQUIVALENCE.–Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the Secretary from issuing regulations or other guidance to ensure that health plans excluding specific items or services under this paragraph shall have an aggregate actuarial value at least equivalent to that of plans at the same level of coverage that do not exclude such items or services.”.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.–The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall be effective as if included in the enactment of Public Law 111-148.

Obama is Not to Blame for High Gas Prices

February 29, 2012 - The continued republican attempts to blame the Obama administration for rising gas prices is a sham.  The federal government is does not have the ability to stem the rising costs of crude oil and ultimately the price of gasoline in the long term.

President Barack Obama

Yes, the Obama administration could order the the release of oil from the strategic petroleum reserves, but this would only lower gas prices in the short term.  Once the reserves were depleted the price of gasoline would once again rise.

Republican's would like the American public to believe that additional domestic oil production would reduce the price of gasoline.  Unfortunately it wouldn't!  Oil is traded on an international market, so oil produced in the United States would be placed on the open market and ultimately may or may not be refined into gasoline for the American consumer.   In addition to this, Republican's would like you to believe that the approval of the XL pipeline from Canada to Texas would solve our problems, but this also wouldn't produce the desired result.  Although the pipeline would create jobs during the construction, and a lesser number of ongoing jobs after completion, the refined oil would also be put on the open market and likely be shipped to countries as far away as China.

Speaker of the House John Boehner answers a reporter's
 question following a meeting of the Republican
conference on Tuesday in Washington. (Win McNamee / Getty Images)

The increased oil production may reduce the price of gasoline slightly, but overall worldwide demand would eventually eat up most of the the additional oil placed on the market.

Republican comments expressed recently are neither helpful nor factual. "The president says he's for an 'all of the above' energy strategy -- anyone seen it? I haven't," scoffed House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

"It's time for him to lay his cards on the table," Boehner said. "We've got a handful of environmental groups -- radical environmental groups -- who've stood in the way of having a national energy policy. It's just about damn time that we actually have a national energy policy."

If the Republican party had it's way their "drill baby drill" motto would be their solution to our energy problems at the expense of the environment. I am not against domestic oil production, but if we really want to have it as part of our national energy policy we need to keep it in the U.S. for the benefit of the American consumer. Not being an expert on commodities, I'm not sure if this is either possible or practical, but it certainly would be a way to reduce our gas prices.

The bottom line is that President Obama and his administration are not to blame for the increase in gas prices, the market, international uncertainty, developing markets demand for oil, and the oil companies greed are to blame for this.

If the Republican's would stop lying and place the blame where it truly lies it would be a refreshing change. American's need to educate themselves on the issues rather than taking what either political party says at face value. Let's face it, they will say anything to get elected.

Haaretz - Netanyahu will urge Obama to publicly back attack on Iran, sources say

Intensive preparations underway to ensure a successful meeting between the two leaders next week in Washington, despite lack of trust between two sides.

By Barak Ravid

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to publicly harden his line against Iran during a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in Washington on March 5, according to a senior Israeli official.

AP-Netanyahu, left, meeting with Obama at
the United Nations last September. 

Israel wants Obama to make further-reaching declarations than the vague assertion that "all options are on the table," the official said. In particular, Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain "red lines," said the official; Israel feels this will increase pressure on Iran by making clear that there exists a real U.S. threat.

Officials in both Jerusalem and Washington acknowledge a serious lack of trust between Israel and the United States with regard to the issue of a possible strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. A senior U.S. official who is involved in preparing Netanyahu's visit to the United States - and who asked to remain anonymous - said intensive preparations are underway to guarantee the success of the meeting between Netanyahu and Obama and to bridge this lack of trust.

The White House proposed to the Prime Minister's Office on Tuesday that the two release a joint statement following the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu. The goal of the announcement would be to bridge apparent disagreements between the United States and Israel, and to present a single U.S.-Israeli front in order to leverage pressure on Iran. To date, the United States still has not proposed a text for such an announcement.

According to sources, the lack of trust between Israeli and U.S. officials appears to stem from, among other things, a mutual feeling that the other country is interfering in its own internal political affairs. Netanyahu suspects that the U.S. administration is attempting to turn Israeli public opinion against an attack on Iran, say sources.

Meanwhile, they say, the Obama administration suspects Netanyahu is using Congress and the Republican candidates in the presidential race to put pressure on Obama to support such a strike.

Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a close ally of Netanyahu's, has contributed tens of millions of dollars to Republican candidate Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign - and this certainly has not helped to increase the trust between Obama and Netanyahu. Gingrich is expected to speak at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference two days after Obama, and one day after Netanyahu. Like the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, Gingrich is expected to attack Obama and claim he is "weak on Iran."

The issue of strengthening U.S. rhetoric against Iran was raised last week by Israeli officials who met with Tom Donilon, the U.S. national security adviser who visited Israel last week. It was also raised by Defense Minister Ehud Barak during his Washington visit, which included a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden yesterday. Other senior Israeli officials - such as Vice Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon (Likud ) and Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor (Likud) - have made similar comments to senior U.S. officials recently.

The problem is not with the number of meetings between Israelis and Americans on the issue, but with the results of those meetings, according to a senior Israeli official who is heavily involved in the dialogue with Americans, but who asked to remain unnamed. "The talks with the Americans are like porcupines having sex: slowly and carefully," he said. "A lot of general statements that they think we want to hear, but we are constantly asking them what's the bottom line? How can the Iranians understand that if they do not stop they will attack in the end?"

The Obama administration's suspicions concerning Netanyahu were further fueled after Netanyahu and his advisers briefed a group of senators and senior congressmen during the past two weeks on the Iranian issue, and asked them to pressure Obama on the matter. Last week, Netanyahu met a group of five senior senators over lunch, headed by Sen. John McCain, who ran four years ago against Obama for president. Netanyahu reportedly told the senators he was not interfering in U.S. politics and expected U.S. officials not to interfere in Israeli politics either.

The topic quickly turned to Iran, according to reports. Netanyahu apparently complained bitterly about certain officials in the Obama administration who spoke out against an Israeli strike on Iran. But between the lines, some suggest that Netanyahu was speaking about Obama himself, as well as the other very senior officials in the administration. He reportedly told the senators that this kind of public discourse serves the Iranians.

Donilon, who was in Israel at the same time as the senators, received the same criticism from Netanyahu and Barak. Donilon reportedly told Netanyahu and Barak that the comments made by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, did not represent Obama's opinions, and that Obama was unhappy with Dempsey's statements, according to a senior U.S. official involved in the talks. Dempsey reportedly said, "I don't think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran," and added that a strike "would be destabilizing" and "not prudent." But Dempsey changed his tone in statements yesterday during a Senate hearing. He said he had not told Israel not to attack Iran, and that the United States has not taken any options off the table.

Netanyahu does not appear to be convinced by Dempsey's backtracking, and considers such reports to be part of a coordinated campaign against an Israeli strike, according to sources. In Netanyahu's view, this is all part of a goal to enlist both Israeli and U.S. public support against such a strike, sources say, and is part of what he considers to be U.S. interference in internal Israeli affairs.

The White House was furious after McCain spoke out after the meeting with Netanyahu, said one source. McCain said, "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat. Unfortunately there clearly is some." The Obama administration viewed this as Israeli intervention in U.S. internal political affairs, with Netanyahu briefing McCain and McCain repeating his statements like a parrot, according to a senior U.S. official.

Netanyahu also believes that Obama's scheduled meeting with President Shimon Peres during the upcoming AIPAC conference constitutes an attempt by the United States to interfere in Israel's internal affairs, say sources. Netanyahu's suspicions were apparently heightened by last week's report in Haaretz that Peres will tell Obama that he objects to an Israeli attack on Iran. Since then, the relations between Netanyahu and Peres have been tense. Peres denied the reports, but Netanyahu and his staff do not seem to completely believe his denials. Peres and Netanyahu met on Friday and again yesterday, just as Peres was set to leave for the United States. The two worked hard to show an atmosphere of "business as usual," according to a source.

Peres reportedly updated Netanyahu about what he should say at the AIPAC conference, and it seems that the speech will be much more general and moderate than the original version Peres had planned. Netanyahu is also believed to have asked Peres to emphasize a number of matters in his meeting with Obama in an attempt to maintain a unified front. Whether Peres will do so remains to be seen.

Rick Santorum - Dangerous for America

February 28, 2012 - Today's primaries in Arizona and Michigan will go a long way in determining who will be the Republican candidate for president in November.

Rick Santorum speaks during a campaign
rally at the Sabbar Shrine Center,

As an American I can only hope that Mitt Romney reigns victorious over Rick Santorum.  Mr. Santorum is truly scary for America on so many levels.  His extreme religious views threaten to undermine decades of civil rights victories for women and gays.  Our children will suffer due to the elimination of any federal funding for public education.  He will attempt to eliminate a women's right to choose as it relates to reproductive issues. In almost every talking point on his websites issues page,  https://www.ricksantorum.com/issues, he can be seen forcing his religious beliefs on the American public.

Mr. Santorum, you are infringing on my religious freedom.  Religious freedom begins with my right not to be religious at all if I choose to be.  I don't need you telling me how my family should live their lives, this is not your place.   You sir are a prime example of why we as American's believe in the separation of church and state.  It gives us the right to not have anyone's religious beliefs forced upon us making it a principle that we must protect at any cost.

In addition, Rick Santorum's view on foreign policy is something to be concerned with.  His religious views make him an enemy of the Muslim world.  Any non-Christian country would be in his cross-hairs should they disagree with U.S. policy.  Santorum's view is that Islam is evil and must be contained or destroyed.  This does not bode well for world diplomacy.  Whether he likes it or not, Islam is here to stay so the U.S. must be willing to deal with them diplomatically when at all possible.  In the past Santorum has publicly shown his negative views of Muslim countries such as our ally Turkey when he claimed that it was lead by terrorists.  These types of comments are neither productive nor helpful.  By making these incendiary statements he is placing our military men and women in even greater harm than they already are.

If America has any hopes of avoiding a national and international disaster, we must, as a country show Rick Santorum and those that are like him, that we won't stand for their narrow-minded, exclusionary, policies.  The United States is not perfect, but it will certainly take a step backwards should Santorum become the Republican nominee.

GOP Attack on Women's RIghts 2012

By D. DiFrancesco

Rick Santorum

For the last several weeks the President has been attacked by the GOP for requiring all employers to provide free birth control coverage in their insurance offerings.  This of course upset the Catholic Church and in turn gave Romney, Santorum, and the other stooges something to attack Obama on since the economy seems to be improving monthly based on the numbers.  It appears that it offends their "when convenient" sensitivities.  In an attempt to appease the religious right, President Obama modified the mandate to require insurance companies, not employers to offer free birth control in their plans.  This certainly didn't stop the Republicans from claiming the President's desire to trample on religious freedom.  I am of the firm opinion that church needs to be more worried about itself than of the administration.  When reports show that 98% of Catholic women use or have used birth control, this requirement clearly won't have any affect on their congregations one way or another.

This issue should not be an issue at all.  Those devout individuals can remain true to their beliefs by not taking advantage of the added birth control benefit.  While those who are less devout or non-Catholic can enjoy the added coverage.  If the church actually trusted in the faith of their followers, birth control would not be an issue at all.  Their lack of faith is what is truly the problem.  No law that any Congress could put forth can solve this problem, instead it must be solved from within the church itself.

Mitt Romney

As has been mentioned repeatedly over the course of the weeks since this issue was brought into the limelight...women have not been included in the discussion.  Reproductive rights is inherently a women's issue and yet it is men that are at the forefront of the debate.  Taking the right to choose away from women is a tremendous blow to women's rights.  It will set the rights they have gained, and rightfully so, back by decades.  Neither the GOP nor the church has the right to tell a women what she can and can not do with her body.  Their preaching is both outdated and impractical.  We no longer live in an agrarian society.  The need for large families with many children is not a requirement.  In today's economic climate, it is also unaffordable.  The GOP candidates can't have it both ways.  They scream out for cuts to our social programs and yet at the same time they fight programs such as this birth control mandate that will help limit the number of children on the welfare roles.  It makes no sense.

Barack Obama

It seems to me that President Obama has been thinking in practical terms rather than basing his actions on either emotion or religious conviction.  This in no way reflects badly on Obama or his faith contrary to the inflammatory rhetoric that the Republican presidential candidates are spewing in an attempt to energize their bases.

We are witnessing a GOP struggling to find an identity to propel them back into the White House in 2012.  Instead I think we are really watching President Obama skillfully retain the White House and enjoy a second term.  Ultimately I predict that the GOP will self-destruct.  They have no real front runner, and no single candidate that their base can rally behind as a whole.  In the end...Obama 2012.

Opinion: Is Iran on a Path to Destruction?

February 15, 2012   By: D. DiFrancesco


As Iran continues to taunt the west, the question that has to be asked is are they traveling down a path of destruction?  

Based upon their ongoing defiance of United Nations mandates, the accusation of Iranian involvement in the attempted assassinations of Israeli diplomats in India and Georgia, and their boast today of using more highly enriched, home grown nuclear fuel in a research reactor seems to be putting them on an inevitable course toward a military conflict with the West.  Of course, the hopes that a diplomatic solution can be reached before it comes to that is preferable, but based on Iran's past actions a peaceful solution at this time seems unlikely.

Reuters: An F/A-18 fighter plane (bottom) prepares to launch on the flight
deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)
 during flight operations in the Gulf, ahead of a transit
 through the Strait of Hormuz, February 13, 2012

Although Russia and China have proven to be roadblocks to stricter sanctions, the United States and Israel refused to take military action off of the table.  As a sign of U.S. resolve, the Navy's Fifth fleet which always contains at least one super carrier along with scores of jets, and a fleet of destroyers and frigates has returned to the gulf in a show of overwhelming force.  As an additional show of strength, President Obama sent one of the Navy's aircraft carriers through the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday as a sign that if Iran attempts to close the Strait the U.S. will be ready to reopen it.

Reuters: A helicopter from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) hovers over
 an Iranian patrol ship during a transit
through the Strait of Hormuz, February 14, 2012.

Although most of the firepower in the gulf is American, other western countries and Gulf Arab states also have assets in the gulf under the command of the United States.

Although Iran has continued their defiant rhetoric, they have recently shown a desire to return to the bargaining table with the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, and Germany.  Time will tell if their stance toward curbing their nuclear ambitions has softened.  In addition, the sanctions put in place by the west are beginning to take their toll on the Iranian economy.  Whether this will be enough to persuade the leadership in Iran to deal in good faith with the West has yet to be seen, but there is cautious optimism that progress can be made before military action becomes the only option left in this crisis.

What is the 2012 Election Really About

Article First Published as  What is the 2012 Election Really About? on Blog Critics

President Barack Obama

What is the 2012 election really about?

From what I can see, it isn’t about the issues, unemployment, healthcare, the federal budget, or taxes.  What it is about, and the Republican candidates say it during every debate and after every primary, it’s about beating Barack Obama at any cost.

They don’t like to give too many alternatives to what the president has done in the three years since taking office, but what they do provide are sophomoric names, most of which they probably don’t know the meaning of, such as socialist, communist and Newt Gingrich’s favorite...food stamp president.

What should the next Presidential election be about?  Well how about the issues mentioned above to name a few.  I for one, would like to know what the candidates stand for.  So far I don’t find much substance in what they have to say.  The infighting and name calling detracts from the real issues and to top it off the Republican party is so fractured that they can’t get behind any one candidate collectively.  They continue to throw Ronald Reagan’s name around as though their passion for the past will pave the road to the White House.  In addition, they act as though Reagan’s policies of the 1980’s are still relevant today.  I’ve got news for you folks, they aren’t!

According to Bruce Bartlett a domestic policy advisor to Ronald Regan and the person who drafted the 1981 Reagan tax cut, and I quote “I think Republicans misunderstand the premises upon which Reagan’s economic policies were based and why those policies can’t — and shouldn’t — be replicated today...Economic conditions are entirely different today than they were in Reagan’s era, and different conditions demand different policies. Those who say otherwise are simply engaging in cookie-cutter economics — proposing whatever was popular and seemed to work once, without regard to changing circumstances”.  This quote comes from the Washington Post, PostOpinions article by Bruce Bartlett published February 3, 2012 titled Why the GOP should stop invoking Reaganomics. According to Mr. Bartlett, our current top tax rate is half what it was when Reagan took office and the Federal Reserve rate is far lower than what Reagan inherited.  The Fed today, can’t lower rates below zero percent.  The bottom line is that 2012 is not 1980.  They must stop trying to resurrect old, tired, irrelevant policies by shoving them down the American peoples throats.  It’s time for conservatives to move on with new ideas if they have any.

Mitt Romney

In addition, I would like to hear some common sense policies regarding taxes.  I’m sorry, but continuously reducing taxes to the detriment of our military, senior citizens, our national debt and the poor is unconscionable.  Regardless of what the Republican and Tea Party conservatives think, there will always be the need for government services and we as Americans and human beings should and must provide them.  Conservatives will likely call this socialism.  I disagree, but if that is what they want to call it, so be it.  I can hear the right-wing now spewing their Darwinian “survival of the fittest” rants to anyone that will listen.  I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it.  Yes, these are taxpayer funded programs, but I would rather see my money go to these programs than to the wasteful earmarks that Congress loves to stick into every piece of legislation.  I am a middle class taxpayer and I would gladly pay more in taxes to pay off our debts, provide services to those in need, strengthen social security and medicare, and fund our military.

The next issue that needs addressed is the state of healthcare in this country.  There was a time that we had the best healthcare in the world.  However, In the last World Health Organization ranking of health systems, the United States came in at #37.  That is a disgrace.  Although I don’t like the way President Obama and the democrats pushed through the healthcare reform bill, at least something was finally done to reform healthcare.  The Republicans, during their years as the majority, had the opportunity to propose their own comprehensive healthcare reform, but instead chose to bow to the insurance industry lobbyists and not the desires of the American people.   If you don’t like the current law, at the appropriate time make changes to it, but make sure that they are to the advantage of the American people and not corporate interests.

Social Security and Medicare are two institutions in America that have become the political footballs of conservatives.  Social Security is routinely used as the treasury departments bank.  According to Andrew Taylor, Associated Press writer, Washington, “The Treasury Department "borrows" surpluses in the Social Security trust funds for use across the federal government. As a practical matter, the amount of money borrowed equals the balances in the trust funds after benefits are paid out...This practice began in 1937 with the creation of the Social Security system during Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration. That first year the government paid $2 million in interest on money it borrowed from the retirement trust fund”.  This practice, of borrowing money from the social security fund and paying interest does not mean that the principal had been paid back to the fund.  The surplus at the end of 2007 for example was $2.2 trillion with interest paid back to the fund of $110 billion.  It is dishonest for our politicians to place the entire blame on our aging population, when the monies paid into the fund should have been left in the fund to grow with interest for future payments.  In the case of Medicare, it does need to be reformed to eliminate fraud and provide more streamlined service to those the program is supposed to help, but it should not be used as political fodder for conservatives.  Medicare has been a tremendous benefit to your grandparents and mine who might have otherwise been unable to afford quality healthcare.

Lastly, I would like to know how the education of our children became expendable.  One of the first things put on the chopping block during this economic crisis was education funding.  This is one thing that has hit home recently.  Our schools, which I’m sure are not atypical, don’t have enough books, or teachers for the student population.  My child has no books for use in doing homework assignments.  They are told that if they need to reference the book, they will need to do it after school.  Teachers are required to teach subjects outside of their specialty because the school can’t afford to hire enough teachers to cover all of the required subjects.  The United States was once ranked at the top in education world wide, but is now ranked at a mediocre “average” and falling.  Our 21st century global economy requires a much better than average educational system.  Our public schools and our children should never be used as scapegoats for political gain.

This election should be based on the real issues, not simply beating President Obama at any cost.  If the Republicans have something of value to offer, then please do so.  This campaign  isn’t fair to the American people they deserve better than this.