Let The Blue Boy Play

John Fogarty

Let the Blue Boy play. That’s a line from a concert I listened to last night. After a hell-acious week I found myself sitting on my porch with my iPhone, and a six pack feeling beat up. Mental and physical exhaustion had piled up on me, and I couldn’t see writing anything that night or for many nights in the foreseeable future. I began to check YouTube, listening to playlists I had saved when an interview with John Fogarty popped up.

I’d never heard John say anything negative in my life, but he was recounting the breakup of Creedence, and there were some feelings there. To make a long story short the other members of the group were a flock of no talent tick turds. John was all the talent, all the show, all the genius. CCR was there simply because that was the way it was done in those days and you had to have a group. The Beatles had set the norm and for years that’s what people expected to see. The Elvis model of big name singer and faceless back groups had been done away with and replaced by rock groups, who were all equally talented, and of course they were all friends, even if they’d met in a bus station.

Of course this was a lie. When John got enough of this and walked away, Fantasy Records raked him over the coals until he was well done. Many years later he came out again and they tried to sue him for sounding like himself. Finally it was mostly resolved and John was able to produce again. He produced some material and surprise, surprise! There was NO Creedence, it was always just John Fogarty.

Under the interview were suggested videos, one being a concert he gave twenty years ago called Premonition, so I clicked it. I’ve seen it before and thought the music may lighten my mood. You can’t listen to John Fogarty without feeling something. The energy, the emotion, the simplicity of the words all combine to produce a feeling that even if it’s not something you grew up with it strikes a chord in you that causes you to remember things you never knew, and pulls something out of you never knew was there. Willie does the same, but you gotta be drunk for it to work. With John, iced tea will do.

The audience stayed on its feet. John joked with them, and with his band, and the smiles toward John from the backup band were genuine. I was blown away by the energy coming out of this old man, but it seemed like the more he played the stronger he got, and then he gave me a gift. I felt rested, stronger, all the week’s pressure had left and it was just John, me, and a beer.

John had replaced all he bad in me with the joy he felt entertaining those people so long ago. He had put all the bad away, and so did I. Your happiness is not from without, but within, and the drama around you can only affect you if you let it in. I listened to the entire concert, and by the time I retired I was already rested. Today everyone around me got up, still fighting them tired old demons, myself, I just let the Blue Boy play.

 

The post Let The Blue Boy Play appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/let-the-blue-boy-play/

What about a vaccine for cancer?

When you have cancer, you have cancer all over. That’s one reason standard cancer treatments in orthodox medicine — the “poison, burn and cut” technique — fail so often.

This is not medical therapy. Cancer is an industry for profit. It is not designed to cure you!  If it was, orthodox doctors would spend more time teaching proper nutrition and supplements to help build up your natural immunity and less time pushing their chemical and radiological poisons.

If you pay attention to the words they use, it is always about “treatment” and “survival rate” and how many years you might live after diagnosis. Many types of cancer treatments including various drugs can, in fact, cause cancer or make it worse! https://personalliberty.com/chemo-makes-cancer-worse/

Cancer can manifest in any way and in several ways, but it is a disorder of cell growth from a default in biochemistry.

As we told you a few weeks ago, new research on cancer treatments is focusing on the immune system. Experimental treatments using immune system cells to battle tumors show promise.

It’s long been our position that the body’s immune system is the true cancer fighter. Any boost that helps the immune system battle mutated cancer cells is good for optimum health.

Now two more studies are out that claim to show a vaccine can be successfully made to battle a type of cancer —  advanced stage melanoma — by ramping up the body’s natural immune response through the use of directed T cells (a type of cell that fights infection). But both remain very early in their trials and the results should be taken with a grain of salt.

As Axios.com reports, in the U.S. study, scientists selected six people to receive a vaccine to target neonantigen proteins that are present in mutated cancer cells but not in normal cells. The team removed the patients’ tumors, sequenced tumor and normal cells, selected up to 20 mutations per person, and made the peptides to put into the vaccine. The vaccines, which were started an average of 18 weeks after the surgery, were injected under the skin at four sites, five times over three weeks, plus two booster shots later.

Four of the six who received the vaccine saw their cancer disappear and not recur. The other two saw their cancers spread. They received an additional treatment to suppress a protein that blocks T cells and saw their tumors disappear.

In a similar study in England on 13 people, eight had their tumors disappear and five saw their tumors disappear but return. Of the five, two died, two received an additional treatment to suppress the protein that blocks T cells — one successfully, and one developed a tumor mutation making it unresponsive to the vaccine.

In short, this experimental treatment has been used on 19 people to date and 14 saw positive results. So it’s still a long way from being available.

Meantime, you can take steps to help keep yourself cancer-free by understanding its root cause. Almost all cancer is environmental (as much as 90 percent environmental), according to a study at Stony Brook University in New York. That means the cell-growth disorder is prompted and spurred on by environmental and external factors. These include excess sun exposure, smoking, drinking and air pollution. It also includes genetically modified foods, steroids and antibiotics pumped into our livestock and poultry, and pesticides and weed killers sprayed on our crops. It includes a host of chemicals introduced to our foods during production and in packaging.

So if most cancers are a result of external factors, most cancers can be avoided and/or cured by overcoming those factors.

Whole body health has to be re-established. Diet and lifestyle changes are needed. But the mainstream has stolen those words and convinced you that its diets, foods and exercise plans are proper. Beware!

The proper diet for cancer is the proper diet for heart disease — and for good health in general. Nothing could be simpler.

Here goes: This is basic. It’s not all-inclusive, but it’s adequate and certainly a good start. It will add years to your life through disease prevention!

Foods first

Here’s what you need to do to have a healthy diet:

  • Leave off all simple carbohydrates.
  • Eat as much raw food and juice as possible. I eat sprouts every day.
  • Do not get on a low-fat diet unless you want bad health.
  • Cook with and eat organic coconut oil and olive oil; no hydrogenated oils or fats.
  • Do not eat or drink anything with fructose (the new name for high fructose corn syrup). This is synthetic sugar that creates weight and disease. And it destroys the liver and pancreas.
  • Avoid trans-fatty acids. These are fake fats that you will see in cheap, grain-based foods, like crackers, cakes, bread, prepared foods, etc. Scan the label for the words “hydrogenated” or “partially hydrogenated.”
  • No artificial sweeteners. Use natural stevia or honey, which are natural sweeteners.
  • Eat wild meat instead of growth-hormone meat, if you can get it. Alternatively, choose only organic, free-range meat that has not been pumped full of antibiotics and steroids.
  • Avoid synthetic vitamins, and that’s 98 percent of all vitamins for sale.
  • Do eat whole food complexes to get live foods that generate and regenerate life processes.
  • Add more dark leafy greens to your diet, particularly kale.

Everyone who has cancer dies of starvation, unless he is first killed by his doctor and his treatment. There is even a term for death by medical treatment: “iatrogenic death,” which is one of the leading causes of death in the U.S.

The cancer victim does not have to be a party to his own plunder and murder. Mass deception is when a person or a society can be deceived into active participation in his own rape or murder. Such is a testimony to today’s propaganda in medicine, in politics, in government, and in economic and financial chicanery.

One must treat his own cancer, as he is the only one who can. This is called taking responsibility for one’s own health: a do-it-yourself program.

The cancer victim wants someone else to do it for him. Only those who do self-treatment are the ones who survive. You can defeat cancer if you catch it early enough and if you make significant lifestyle changes.

To learn how you can naturally boost your cancer-fighting T cells you can get my free book, The Forbidden Truth About Cancer, by clicking here.

The post What about a vaccine for cancer? appeared first on Personal Liberty®.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/what-about-a-vaccine-for-cancer/

American political prisoner in Venezuela may be granted conditional release

There may be at least some slightly better news coming for an American citizen from Utah who has been held as a political prisoner in Venezuela by President Nicolas Maduro for almost a year now. If you’re not familiar with the case of Joshua Holt, we had coverage of his story last August when he was initially arrested. Holt is a Mormon from Utah who met a Venezuelan woman online, fell in love and traveled to South America to marry her. While awaiting visas for his new bride and her two children so they could return to America, Joshua was arrested on charges that he was storing a rifle and grenades in the apartment they were sharing with her family. (He claims that the weapons were planted by the police after he refused to pay them a bribe.)

Now, after all these months in one of Maduro’s prisons with no progress toward a trial, the country’s top prosecutor has requested his provisional release while she reviews the case. Of course, that may be easier said than done. (Associated Press)

Venezuela’s chief prosecutor on Friday requested the conditional release of a Utah man and his wife detained for over a year on weapons charges in a case that has further rankled already tense relations with the U.S.

The petition to have Joshua Holt and his wife Thamara Candelo freed but barred from leaving Venezuela while awaiting trial was made because of what the prosecutor’s office said were repeated delays by the court overseeing the case.

Prosecutors also requested that they be allowed to verify the couples’ health in the Caracas facility run by Venezuela’s intelligence police where they are being held alongside some of President Nicolas Maduro’s fiercest opponents.

This isn’t the first time that Chief Prosecutor Luisa Ortega has crossed swords (rhetorically) with Maduro, but she’s putting herself in a precarious position. Formerly part of his inner circle, Ortega seems to have seen the writing on the wall and has been distancing herself from the embattled president. In a more “normal” country you couldn’t imagine the president simply throwing the government’s chief prosecutor in jail for defying his will, but this is Venezuela we’re talking about and they remain under the rule of a socialist tyrant. All of this is unfolding just as Maduro prepares to have people vote on whether or not he should be able to rewrite their constitution. (Though, as John points out in the linked article, the results of that vote will be essentially meaningless and the president will do as he pleases anyway.)

What’s possibly more disturbing is the fact that this tyrant, just like the leader of Turkey, is able to keep an American citizen imprisoned for so long with no consequences. John Kerry failed to do anything about getting Holt and his wife released while Obama was still in office and I don’t know if Rex Tillerson is even working on the problem. The Utah resident is almost certainly being held on trumped up charges, but he’s clearly being used as a political pawn at this point. (How was Holt supposedly able to get his hands on those kinds of armaments as soon as he stepped off the plane in Caracas from his honeymoon?)

It’s also worth remembering that Holt isn’t the only American that Maduro has grabbed. Francisco Marquez was arrested last June while gathering signatures for a referendum to remove Maduro from power. He was released last October, thankfully, and is now leading online calls for Maduro’s removal from his home in the United States, but it’s still a reminder of how little fear Maduro seems to have of the United States.

I’ve never called for U.S. intervention in Venezuela to save her people from Maduro. That’s their job if they truly want to step away from socialism and reform the system. But we do have a vested interest in protecting American citizens. If we can’t get Joshua Holt and his family back on American soil soon, Maduro needs to face some serious consequences in the form of additional isolation from the West.

The post American political prisoner in Venezuela may be granted conditional release appeared first on Hot Air.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/american-political-prisoner-in-venezuela-may-be-granted-conditional-release/

Difiance

 

After centuries of order based on the acceptance of the divine right of rule imposed on the people beginning with the declining aristocracy of Rome, western civilization veered toward democracy as the base principle from which the legitimacy of governing authority would flow. In England kings were finding that their crowns sat with increasing uneasiness upon their heads without the cooperation of men who would fight for them, and unending wars coupled with shifting alliances among the ruling class assured each ruler that they would need a steady supply of fighting men. It was this idea, the divine right of rule that had turned upon itself at last, and undermined the legitimacy of royal authority by presenting the people with would be rulers who each laid claim to competing rights to the ultimate divine authority that had done so. As scions from the Tudors, and the Yorks, the Stuarts and the Windsors each made war upon the other, it was increasingly important that would be monarchs won the hearts of the people. The inevitable result was, after several lessons in good faith were learned, a parliament of the people. When British citizens in the colonies saw that they would be given less equality than their counterparts in England, revolution ensued, and the yoke of monarchy was cast off for good.

 

It is important to recognize that the world was wide, and that those places that would eventually be known as t third world, were governed primarily by the sword, and that the consequence of this was that each ruler, assuming the crown of the vanquished, was forced to begin anew the process of establishing the peace that is the ultimate requirement for any civilization to advance and prosper. The world was to learn that conquest is much more feasible than occupation. It is far easier to take than it is to hold. As hard as it may be to understand, it is in those simple words that hope dwells for the defeated.

 

Perhaps the greatest value offered by a constitutional democracy is the fact that no citizen may make war upon another without attacking themselves. By imbuing our governing authority with that all important ingredient, legitimacy, we, as sovereign citizens pool our individual right to life in order that we may pursue a single purpose collectively. We cannot, therefore undermine the authority of our constitutionally appointed government without nullifying our own authority to legitimize. It is this very principle that has made America possible, and determined our course as the leaders of the world itself. The notion that the person taking your order at a restaurant has the same right to lend legitimacy as the person who owns that same restaurant is our sword, and our shield. The awe inspiring realization that the lowliest soldier on the battlefield contains within their simple life the exact same coin of legitimacy as he who commanded them to fight is not a reflection of America, it is America.

 

There are complications of course. The source of these complications, like the constitution itself, is simple, and it is rooted in the thing which must be granted the authority to rule; for once the source of legitimacy has been granted, and authority has been created, a government must be made. It is here, in the tool birthed by principles high above where our minds may follow, that weakness and corruption must, and will take root. Untended, any garden or field will fall prey to the chaotic influence of nature, that enemy of order, and we Americans in this last generation have been anything but vigilant. Content to place our belief in those chosen by constitutional means, pursuing that most American of ideals, the creation, development and sustenance of our families, communities, and churches, we have let slip our hold on those who govern, and thereby given up our birthright to legitimize.

 

Is the current American government without legitimacy? Rather than answer that question I call upon another text of legitimacy and say to you that by their works you shall know them. Look around. Is this the world you hoped for as a child? When you met the one you love, when your bodies and spirits joined together to make real the dream of your shared purpose was this the world you intended to leave your beautiful children? I say that as a whole, our government’s legitimacy is precarious, and with it our futures. The mind recoils from the prospect of what might happen, and, even worse, our inability to control that nightmare. But remember my words of comfort. It is easier to take than it is to hold. I, for one am defiant! Bear with me a few short weeks and allow me to show you a hidden pathway back onto the path foreordained for America. Come to Theos Branch and relearn your birthright by closely examining the constitution. Call it a contribution to our basic understanding of civics, then join me here on Clevenger and Witt for the op-ed to each lesson. I promise you this, our government may be bought, but we can take it back without spending a dime, because money is not the source of legitimacy in America, it is us.

 

 

The post Difiance appeared first on Tea Party Tribune.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/difiance/

Consumer Freedom Option Included in Senate Health Insurance Bill, but ObamaCare Remains Law of the Land

After a long wait, the Senate Budget Committee finally unveiled the latest iteration of the Better Care Reconciliation Act, H.R. 1628. There are a few things to like, but, on the whole, the Senate is bill still fails to live of to more than seven years of promises to repeal ObamaCare. It remains an amendment to the 2010 health insurance reform law.

The reason the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) fails to live up to Republicans’ promises to repeal ObamaCare is because many Republicans, in the House and the Senate, support the law. These Republicans believe they can “fix” ObamaCare. Some less than principled Republicans are even naïve enough to believe that they can work with Democrats, who are increasingly embracing single-payer, government-run insurance, to address the healthcare system.

The question is whether the BCRA is an improvement. That is hard to determine. On the surface, it may be a slight improvement. The latest version does include Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee’s Consumer Freedom Option in the base text. But there are some details worth diving into that make an already complicated issue even more complicated.

Ultimately, the Congressional Budget Office will provide some insight on the effects of these provision on health insurance premiums. Of course, the coverage estimates, assuming the CBO will still use the March 2016 baseline, will be largely useless. Again, though, the bill, regardless of the impact on premiums, is still a very big disappointment and risks upsetting conservatives who have been expecting Republicans to keep their word.

Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) plans to bring the bill for a procedural vote next week. Whether he has the votes, though, is unclear at this moment. Below is a brief overview of some of the more notable changes in the latest iteration of the BCRA.

Inclusion of the Consumer Freedom Option: This is actually more of a mixed bag. The inclusion of the amendment is what organizations like FreedomWorks wanted. The Consumer Freedom Option allows health insurance companies to sell plans that aren’t compliant with most of ObamaCare’s onerous and costly mandates and requires that they sell at least one gold and silver metal-tier plan compliant with ObamaCare.

The problem is that the Consumer Freedom Option works best when risk pools are split, or bifurcated. This means keeping those consumers who choose plans that reflect the Consumer Freedom Option into one risk pool and those who have a higher utilization of care and choose plans compliant with ObamaCare into another risk pool.

Unfortunately, the BCRA mandates single risk pools, which means that the premiums for those who choose noncompliant plans will be more expensive that they otherwise would have been in a separate risk pool. “[I]t will be difficult to combine non-community-rated plans and community-rated coverage into one risk pool,” healthcare policy expert Chris Jacobs explained, “and unlikely to achieve significant premium reductions.”

The Consumer Freedom Option may now be in the BCRA, but it’s much less impactful.

Using HSAs to Pay Health Insurance Premiums: The BCRA now allows consumers to use their health savings account (HSA) to pay the premiums for high-deductible health insurance plans on the nongroup market. High-deductible plans offered by an employer aren’t eligible. Consumers who receive tax subsidies for nongroup plans can pay their premiums out of an HSA for only the amount remaining after tax subsidies. This is a positive reform for which FreedomWorks has advocated during the discussion over health insurance reform.

More Subsidy Funding: The original version of the BCRA had a total of $112 billion in subsidies to stabilize the health insurance markets ($50 billion over four years) and help cover high-risk consumers ($60 billion over eight years). The revised version of BCRA more than doubles the amount of subsidies to help cover high-risk consumers, bringing the eight-year total to $132 billion. Part of these subsidies will be used to help cover those in states that utilize the Consumer Freedom Option. The two funds combined represent $182 billion.

BCRA Keeps Some ObamaCare Taxes: In the original version of the BCRA, and consistent with the 2015 repeal bill, almost all of ObamaCare’s taxes were repealed, delayed, or zeroed out. Unfortunately, the new version of the BCRA keeps some ObamaCare taxes in place, including the Medicare tax increase and the net investment tax. This is to satisfy the demands of moderates who have gone back on their word to repeal ObamaCare. Unfortunately, after eight years of President Obama’s bad economic policies, some Republican senators, including Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), are fighting to keep anti-growth taxes in place. Making matters worse, Leader McConnell is allowing them to do so.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/consumer-freedom-option-included-in-senate-health-insurance-bill-but-obamacare-remains-law-of-the-land/

Bill O’Reilly: Here’s Who Is Really Stopping the Obamacare Repeal

Democrats are out to “paralyze” the Trump administration so they don’t accomplish anything, but self-interested Republicans are also part of the problem, Bill O’Reilly said on Friday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program.”

Important measures like “Kate’s Law,” a bill that would target sanctuary cities that try to shield illegal immigrants with multiple felonies and deportations, will be blocked by Democrats. But Republicans can’t get it together to repeal the Affordable Care Act either, partly because conservative senators are being too idealistic about what can happen with a health care bill, O’Reilly asserted.

Glenn Beck countered that the health care bills that the GOP has put forward are simply “Obamacare Lite” and won’t fix the problem.

“[This bill] will make the average person’s health premium go up even further faster,” he said of the latest effort to reform health care.

O’Reilly suggested the best thing that Republicans can do is support a bill that gives them most of what they want and then add more reforms later.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/bill-oreilly-heres-who-is-really-stopping-the-obamacare-repeal/

Fox News: Bill Clinton gave a stinging criticism of Hillary’s failed campaign

Former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had a warm and engaging speaking event Thursday in Dallas, Texas, at a program for the Presidential Leadership Scholars. Clinton’s answer to one question sounded suspiciously to commentators on Fox News like a critique of a recent presidential candidate.

Moderator David Rubenstein asked what the most important quality someone would need who is aspiring to be a president. After Bush’s very brief but insightful answer, Clinton responded.

“I also think you have to begin with the end in mind,” Clinton said. “You have to say, yeah, you gotta win the election. But why in the heck are you running?”

“That’s another thing I noticed about him,” Clinton said, pointing at Bush. “When he ran for governor against Ann Richards, he didn’t say ‘Ann Richards is a klutz.’ He said, ‘I wanna be governor because I wanna do one, two, three things.’ Couple of ’em I didn’t agree with. But he had an agenda.”

“If you want to be president,” he continued, “realize, it’s about the people, not about you.”

Howard Kurtz on Fox News said the former president gave himself enough space to deny the similarities to criticisms of the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign, but explained why some thought it was a jab at her lack of political skill.

“It’s obvious to the rest of us what he’s talking about,” Kurtz said, “and look, Hillary Clinton had a campaign where she had a whole laundry list of liberal positions but no theme, no emotional connection to voters, and not much more beyond Donald Trump is awful, and that’s what the former president was artfully saying.”

Kurtz continued, explaining that Hillary Clinton failed “to campaign with certain kinds of voters where she didn’t go as well, Martha.”

“So Clinton, the former president, that is,” he added, “argued internally during the 2016 campaign, his wife needed to do more of that. He did some of it himself, he went to places like Lansing, Michigan, the final week of the campaign.”

The quote from the former president continued after the Fox News video, and many saw instead a pointed critique of President Donald Trump.

“And when it’s over,” Clinton said, “and that’s what a lot of these people who are real arrogant in office, they forget, and it passes more quickly than you know. You wanna be able to say people are better off when I quit, kids have a better future, things were coming together, you don’t wanna say, ‘God, look at all the people I beat!’”

Even during the 2016 presidential campaign many supporters of Hillary Clinton would compare her to her husband, saying that she just didn’t have the political skill he had to engage every individual voter. There were reports that her campaign was trying to keep the former president from upstaging her at events.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/fox-news-bill-clinton-gave-a-stinging-criticism-of-hillarys-failed-campaign/

Most of Obama’s Green Policies Persist at Department of Defense

As Congress considers green projects in a military spending bill, the Trump administration hasn’t staked out a strong case on whether to roll back the Obama administration’s aggressive push for biofuels, wind, solar, and other renewables in the military.

“The Pentagon has bought into climate change because it makes it politically more acceptable,” @myronebell says.

During his confirmation hearing Tuesday, Trump nominee for Navy secretary, Richard V. Spencer told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was watchful of climate change. The committee unanimously approved Spencer.

“The Navy, from my briefings to date, is totally aware of rising water issues, storm issues, etc.,” Spencer said. “We must protect our infrastructure, and I will work hard to make sure we are keeping an eye on that because without the infrastructure, we lose readiness.”

This week, the House has debated the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018. Last month, the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee passed an amendment by Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., directing the Defense Department to assess 10 bases in each branch most threatened by climate change, and for the Pentagon to count climate change as a security risk to deal with—even as several government audits in the last two years have found the alternative energy sources haven’t been efficient for the DOD.

A 2015 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental advocacy and research group, warned that 128 U.S. military bases could be submerged because of rising sea levels.

Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., and Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, each sponsored their own amendments to strike the Langevin provision. Perry’s proposal would remove the language to save money for the Pentagon, while Davidson’s amendment would strike down a 2015 executive order by President Barack Obama that requires the military to meet emission reduction targets.

However, neither of the Republicans’ amendments will likely make it to the floor despite clearing the rules committee, said Myron Ebell, director for the Center for Energy and the Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“There are problems at the Pentagon and in Congress,” Ebell, who served on President Donald Trump’s transition team, told The Daily Signal. “President Trump signed an executive order that got rid of some green energy programs at the Pentagon, but others are left in place.”

Trump signed an order rescinding Obama’s Executive Order 13653 directing the Department of Defense and other departments to use resources to prepare for the impact of climate change. However, Trump hasn’t rescinded this executive order, which is the amendment Davidson is offering would undo, Ebell noted.

“The Pentagon has bought into climate change because it makes it politically more acceptable to people who wouldn’t normally like the Pentagon,” Ebell said. “Another reason is that it’s another means to enhance the portfolio and receive more funding, even if it’s not part of the essential mission.”

One of the nation’s leading environmental groups expressed frustration over the two House Republicans’ proposals.

“Apparently there is no limit to what some Republican members of Congress like Reps. Scott [Perry] and Davidson are prepared to do to wipe away reality, consequences be damned,” Liz Perera, policy director for the Sierra Club, said in a statement. “Some House Republicans think they know more about climate science than actual scientists, and, amazingly, more about how to protect our troops and military bases than the Pentagon. This kind of blind arrogance endangers the health of our families and the security of our nation.”

Navy Cmdr. Patrick L. Evans, a Pentagon spokesman, referenced some of the existing policies and told The Daily Signal, “not to my knowledge,” when asked if there would be significant changes under the Trump administration regarding renewable energy rules across military branches.

Already, Obama-era mandates linger.

Title 10 of the U.S. Code Section 2911 states that 25 percent of Department of Defense facility energy use be generated by renewable energy sources by 2025 and it would take an act of Congress to reverse this.

However, most policies are administrative, said Rachel Zissimos, a research associate for national security and defense studies at The Heritage Foundation.

This includes Obama’s 2011 directive that the Navy and other departments and agencies “work with private industry to create advanced drop-in biofuels that [would] power both the Department of Defense and private sector transportation throughout America.”

Obama’s Navy Secretary Ray Mabus also touted the “Great Green Fleet.” The name is derived from the “Great White Fleet,” the U.S. Navy battle fleet President Theodore Roosevelt ordered to travel the globe and demonstrate American military prowess.

In 2015, the Department of Defense issued a report on the unrest climate change could cause. In a statement about the report, the department said:

The Department of Defense’s primary responsibility is to protect national security interests around the world. This involves considering all aspects of the global security environment and planning appropriately for potential contingencies and the possibility of unexpected developments both in the near and the longer terms. … It is in this context that the department must consider the effects of climate change — such as sea level rise, shifting climate zones, and more frequent and intense severe weather events — and how these effects could impact national security.

In September 2016, the Government Accountability Office found that of 17 renewable energy programs in the Department of Defense, only two provided power in case of a grid outage. The other programs were costly, and the department’s spending on renewable energy went up by 60 percent from 2014 to 2015, according to the audit.

A separate Government Accountability Office study in July 2015 found the department still spends far more on traditional gasoline for fuels, but gets a better bargain per gallon than with alternatives.

The Pentagon paid $58.6 million for 2 million gallons of alternative fuel from 2007 to 2014—which would be about $29 per gallon for alternatives. Conversely, over that same time, the department spent $107.2 billion for 32 billion of petroleum, which would only be $3 per gallon.

A Department of Defense comptroller general’s report in February 2016 found that the cost of environmental compliance increased by more than $119 million from the previous fiscal year.

During his Senate confirmation, Defense Secretary James Mattis said in written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that, “Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today. It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.”

When serving as the commanding general of the First Marine Division during the second Iraq war, Mattis said the Department of Defense should, “unleash us from the tether of fuel.”

Mattis wasn’t advocating addressing alternative fuels because of climate change, but rather because of the cost of transporting fuel, Zissimos said.

“The biggest cost for fuel is transportation, delivery, and storage,” Zissimos told The Daily Signal. “Operations are primarily overseas. A huge investment in biofuels will not reduce that cost because they will still need to be transported overseas.”

The post Most of Obama’s Green Policies Persist at Department of Defense appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/most-of-obamas-green-policies-persist-at-department-of-defense/

Missouri Law Would Make it a Crime to Try to Hide Botched Abortions By Doing This

A new provision in an abortion safety bill has been introduced in the Missouri State Legislature that would make it a misdemeanor crime for abortion clinic workers to interfere with medical assistance by asking ambulances to run with no lights and no sirens. It is the first of its kind in the nation.

If passed, the new law would make such interference punishable by up to one year in jail and fines up to $2,000.

While Planned Parenthood representatives have said the new bill has nothing to do with the health and safety of women, Operation Rescue has evidence to prove that their assertion is a false one.

It is a fact that ambulances running silently take longer to reach their destinations than ambulances running with lights and sirens.

“Asking an ambulance to run in silent mode actually delays care to women when minutes can mean the difference between life and death for women experiencing abortion injuries or other complications,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, whose organization tracks and documents medical emergencies at abortion facilities nationwide.

The real reason abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood do not want ambulances running to their clinics with lights and sirens has everything to do with wanting to avoid bad publicity, according to a former Planned Parenthood abortionist.

Marc E. Heller worked for Planned Parenthood in New York until earlier this year. In a recorded interview with a student from the Cooperstown Graduate Program, conducted on November 19, 2016, Heller explained how Planned Parenthood handled ambulance calls.

“We always said to the ambulance, ‘Please come to the back entrance. Please don’t use any sirens or lights,’ because we knew that the protestors that were there every day would call the press. And there would be a press thing about ‘another botched abortion,’” Heller said.

Mary Kogut, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, has admitted that her St. Louis abortion facility has in the past asked that no sirens be used for the numerous medical emergencies that occur at that clinic.

“[We] may have asked that the siren wasn’t on so that it didn’t alarm other people,” Kogut said, later claiming that it is no longer their policy to ask ambulances to run slowly without sirens.

“Expecting an abortionist to self-police is unwise at best, and often foolhardy. The minute they think no one is looking, they revert back to their bad behavior. We have seen it over and over again,” said Newman. “This law is meant to protect women suffering life-threatening abortion complications from further harm inflicted by often incompetent abortionists who are more interested in covering up their mishaps than getting proper emergency treatment for the women they injured. This law is absolutely necessary.”

The tragic effects of delaying medical care to patients suffering from botched abortions was dramatically illustrated in the death of a 19-year old Down syndrome girl, Christin Gilbert. She had reported with her parents to a Wichita abortion facility for a late-term abortion in January 2005.

When Gilbert, who was pregnant due to a sexual assault, suffered life-threatening complications, one of the clinic workers called 911 begging them to come with no lights or sirens, which delayed their arrival at the abortion facility by several minutes. When emergency responders finally arrived, they were unprepared for the severity of Gilbert’s condition, thinking it was just a routine inter-facility transfer. She died at a local hospital later that day.

Operation Rescue strongly supports the new Missouri bill because the St. Louis Planned Parenthood – the last abortion facility left in Missouri — is a high-volume clinic that has experienced an extraordinary number of medical emergencies. Operation Rescue has documented 65 medical emergencies involving patient ambulance transports there since mid-2009.

Preventing Planned Parenthood from asking ambulances to run more slowly may indeed save lives.

LifeNews.com Note: Cheryl Sullenger is a leader of Operation Rescue.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/missouri-law-would-make-it-a-crime-to-try-to-hide-botched-abortions-by-doing-this/

Her Doctor Gave Her Abortion Pills By Mistake and She Took Them, Thankfully Her Baby Survived

A pregnant woman in Winnipeg has suffered from a month of fears that her unborn baby boy would die after she said her doctor mistakenly gave her abortion drugs.

Serissa McKay, 21, is due July 16, and her unborn baby appears to be ok, Mims reports. However, the young mother has been worrying for nearly a month that her doctor’s alleged mistake would harm or kill her unborn son.

“You’re supposed to trust your doctor,” McKay said.

McKay said she received the abortion pills during a prenatal checkup on June 21 at her doctor’s office. Thinking that they were drugs routinely used in pregnancy, McKay said she went home and took them as instructed.

But what her doctor reportedly gave her was the abortion drug misoprostol, which induces labor, according to the Winnipeg Free Press. McKay said she was instructed to insert four pills in her vagina and wait several hours before taking several more.

McMaster University Professor Dusstin Costescu said McKay’s description of the pills and the method of taking them fits the description of misoprostol, an abortion drug which also is used as an ulcer medication.

Pro-life advocates may be familiar with the drug, which commonly is coupled with mifepristone (RU-486) to abort unborn babies in the first trimester. Doctors have developed a process for reversing RU-486 after the mother takes the abortion drug; however, the abortion reversal process does not work once the woman takes the second drug, misoprostol – the drug that McKay took.

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter. Follow @LifeNewsHQ

Costescu said the drug comes in two doses: 100 or 200 micrograms, and what McKay took was a much higher dose than doctors typically use.

“With labour induction at term, it can be used in as small as 25 to 50mg,” Costescu said. “So you use an eighth or even a 16th of the dose you use in first trimester.”

McKay said her doctor’s office quickly realized the mistake. She said they called her at home right after she had inserted the pills, and asked her to come to the office immediately and have them removed.

“I was pretty much in shock,” McKay said. “It didn’t really hit me until I actually got home.”

Here’s more from the Free Press:

She said the receptionist made her feel bad for not recognizing the pills or realizing they weren’t for her to take.

The Free Press is not naming the doctor or clinic because neither party could be reached for comment Wednesday.

“It was actually pretty painful,” McKay said of the removal process.

McKay said the doctor carried on as if it was a routine appointment, asking her if she had any questions or concerns.

“What will happen? I took pills that I wasn’t supposed to, so what should I watch for?” McKay said she asked the doctor.

She said the doctor told her to watch for cramping and signs of labour — and admitted the drugs had been intended for a woman who had suffered a miscarriage.

McKay said her doctor has not apologized or acknowledged how serious the mistake was. She filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba.

She said she is not comfortable with her doctor, but she was told it may be too late for her to switch before she gives birth.

LifeNews has reported similar cases in the past. In February, a hospital in India also allegedly gave a pregnant woman abortion drugs by mistake. The mother, Dr. Tarannum Wasif Khan, a dentist from Kurla, India, claims one of her unborn twins died as a result of the mistake.

In 2015, a British woman said an OB-GYN clinic wrongly told her that her unborn baby had died and gave her abortion drugs to induce labor to expel her dead baby’s body. However, three weeks later, when the woman fainted and went to the hospital, they discovered that her unborn baby still was alive.

In a sickening case out of Australia several years ago, the Royal Women’s Hospital allegedly aborted the “wrong” twin. One of the unnamed woman’s twins was healthy, but the other had a congenital heart defect; and she chose to have the unhealthy twin aborted. However, something went wrong and doctors accidentally aborted the “wrong” baby, according to the allegations. In the end, both of the woman’s unborn babies ended up dying.

Powered by WPeMatico

From http://www.therightnewsnetwork.com/her-doctor-gave-her-abortion-pills-by-mistake-and-she-took-them-thankfully-her-baby-survived/