ANOTHER I TOLD YOU SO! ALERT: Senate To Go After Handguns!

Piers Morgan: Both the Bible and U.S. Constitution Are ‘Inherently Flawed’ and Need to Be Amended

 

 

While CNN’s Piers Morgan is a well known critic of America’s Second Amendment, he has now ventured into a new campaign to reform another document critical in the development of western civilization; the Bible.
During a discussion on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” on Monday — Christmas Eve — with Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren, Morgan argued that there needs to be an “amendment to the Bible” for same-sex marriage, because like the Constitution, the Bible is “inherently flawed.”
“Both the Bible and the Constitution were well intentioned but they are basically, inherently flawed. Hence, the need to amend it,” Morgan told Warren during a conversation where Morgan emphasized the need for America to separate Church and State.
“My point to you about gay rights, for example, it’s time for an amendment to the Bible.”
“Uh, no,” replied Warren, in a conversation that remained civil between both parties. “Not a chance. What I believe is flawed is human opinion, because it constantly changes.”
Morgan has attracted more media attention than usual over the last few weeks as he has increased his always vocal cries for increased gun control laws in America following the Newtown elementary school shooting earlier this month. Morgan’s campaign has infuriated Second Amendment enthusiasts, leading to a petition to the White House signed by over 75,000 calling for the CNN host’s deportation back to Britain. This development led to a counter protest in the UK “Stop Piers Morgan from being deported back to the UK from America.”
Warren has debated LGBTQ issues on Morgan’s show before, discussing his thoughts with the host last November on whether or not someone can be born gay.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/piers-morgan-both-the-bible-and-u-s-constitution-are-inherently-flawed-and-need-to-be-amended/

Obamacare Could Double Health Care Premiums: Aetna CEO

To provide all Americans with health insurance, premiums will have to rise to pay for it, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini told CNBC's "Closing Bell" on Wednesday.

"If we're going to insure all Americans, which is a worthy and appropriate cause, then somebody has to pay for it," Bertolini said of the expected premium increases under Obamacare.

Bertolini said that insurance premiums could double in some places just on the basis of what types of policies people buy today.

He also said that when Obamacare is fully implemented, it won't start the way people had hoped and it won't be cheaper.

Over the longer run, the key to bringing down premiums will be controlling health care costs, he added. "It'll be fits and starts, but we'll get there," Bertolini said.

Higher premiums also will not necessarily mean higher margins for Aetna. "The people coming into the system will be sicker because they have not used services," Bertolini said. "So in the initial part of this program it will cost more to take care of people because they have been going without health care for so long."

The Aetna executive also weighed in on the debate over the country's fiscal situation.

(Read More: Forget the 'Fiscal Cliff,' Look at These Cliffs)

Bertolini said a big deal would be the best deal for the country, but that it's looking increasingly unlikely that politicians do anything more than a short-term fix which won't be enough to restore confidence.

And confidence is key to increasing business investment and spurring economic growth. "A grand bargain won't create a slow economy," Bertolini said. "It will restore confidence and we'll all invest."

He added, "Americans don't want Plan B, they don't want a short term fix. They want the very best we can come up with. They want Plan A."

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100340096

Supreme Court denies Hobby Lobby request for reprieve from health care mandate

The Supreme Court has denied a request by Hobby Lobby to shield the company from the so-called contraceptive mandate while its legal battle plays out, after a federal court last week similarly ruled against the Christian-owned company.
The lower court had earlier refused to protect the company from an ObamaCare-tied requirement to provide contraceptive coverage, and the fines that come with it for not complying.
CEO David Green, who had taken his case to the appeals court after losing in a lower-court ruling, had argued that his family would have to either "violate their faith by covering abortion-causing drugs or be exposed to severe penalties."
The Supreme Court's latest ruling is not on the underlying merits of the mandate itself -- it simply denies the company's request for an injunction while legal battle on the merits plays out. There are currently more than 40 cases pending against that rule.
The mandate requires businesses and organizations, with some exceptions, to provide access to contraception coverage -- Hobby Lobby was most concerned about coverage for the morning-after pill, which some consider tantamount to an abortion-causing drug. Hobby Lobby has refused to comply, while saying the fines could add up to $1.3 million a day.
In its earlier ruling, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said the company did not prove the rule would "substantially burden" its religious freedom. Though the mandate has exemptions for religious entities like churches, the lower court ruled that Hobby Lobby is not a religious group.
The company, founded in 1972, has more than 13,000 full-time employees across more than 500 stores.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/26/supreme-court-denies-hobby-lobby-request-for-reprieve-from-health-care-mandate/#ixzz2GHt6J8zx

West Longs for Jew-Free Zones in Jerusalem

 

 

Israel plans to step up the building of residences within the settlement blocs and—drawing particular ire—in parts of Jerusalem that were under Jordanian occupation from 1949 to 1967. The Jerusalem plans include housing for both Jews and Arabs.

 

In this holiday season, those plans should be cause for rejoicing instead of heightened rebukes. The city’s status as a hub of three religions, and also of tolerance, pluralism, and across-the-board demographic growth, is being strengthened.

Instead, official Western reactions have been harshly critical (reports here, here, and here).
U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said: “We are deeply disappointed that Israel insists on continuing this pattern of provocative action.” The French Foreign Ministry called the building plans “a provocation that further undermines…trust…and leads us to question Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution.” British foreign secretary William Hague called the plans “a serious provocation and an obstacle to peace.”

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton even hinted at repercussions, saying the EU would “closely monitor the situation…and act accordingly.”

And 14 of the 15 countries on the UN Security Council—with the U.S. as the only exception—issued condemnations as well. Four of them—Britain, France, Germany, and Portugal—said in a joint statement that they were “extremely concerned by, and strongly opposed, the plans…all settlement activity, including in east Jerusalem, must cease immediately.”

It should be noted that, except the U.S., all of the abovementioned countries either voted aye or abstained in last month’s UN General Assembly vote conferring a watered-down form of statehood on the Palestinian Authority. It was partly in reaction to the Palestinians’ move, which blatantly violated the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords that the EU once sanctioned, that Israel announced the new building plans.

Israel, though, couldn’t win. It couldn’t persuade the European states to oppose the Palestinian move; and once it reacted to the move, it was roundly condemned.

Israel was particularly disappointed by Germany’s abstention in the UN vote, after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government had seemed to be intending to vote nay. Germany, as already mentioned, then joined three other countries in demanding that even “East Jerusalem”—where 200,000 Jews now live, 40 percent of Jerusalem’s total Jewish population—be treated as a Jew-free zone.

Beyond these specific points, though, stands the ongoing spectacle of the world’s leading Western powers seeming to pine for a redivided Jerusalem, this time with the Palestinians ruling the Jew-free part. Even if a Palestinian sovereign entity were to arise in the West Bank, “Ramallah,” as David Solway notes in his new book, “…is a good enough Palestinian capital.” Why, then, the insistence on East Jerusalem?

It doesn’t seem reasonable that Washington, London, Paris, Berlin et al. would be nostalgic for the previous period of Muslim Arab rule over that part of the city. The Jordanian occupation was particularly hard on Jews, who were denied all access to their holy sites while Jordanian snipers fired repeatedly into the Jewish part of the city. But the Christians under Jordan’s control suffered as well, their number dwindling from 25,000 in 1949 to 10,000 in 1967 as they were given only paltry access to their holy sites and forced to teach the Koran in their church schools (accounts here and here).

Would it be better under the Palestinians? Not if one takes Bethlehem—where the Palestinian Authority has wielded autonomy since late 1995—as a test case. Palestinian Muslim control there has caused ongoing steep demographic decline for the town’s Christians as they suffer from terror, intimidation, land theft, sexual assault, forced marriages, and the like (accounts here, here, and here)—not surprisingly in light of the continuing severe persecution of Christians throughout the region.

Indeed, however eager the West is for Palestinian rule in East Jerusalem, it turns out that even the predominantly Muslim Palestinians there don’t want it. As Evelyn Gordon notes, the numbers of these Palestinians requesting Israeli citizenship has dramatically climbed in recent years. Polls find that, even if the Palestinian state was established, most East Jerusalem Palestinians would prefer to remain Israeli.

Considering that the Palestinians’ supposed desire to shake off Israeli rule is a shibboleth of Western diplomacy, one might ask why that would be so. But anyone who has been both to Israel and the Palestinian Authority—one is tempted to say, anyone but Western diplomats—knows that the former is an island of Western democracy, prosperity, tolerance, and pluralism in a harsh region.
Jerusalem Palestinians, exposed to those upsides since Israel reunited the city in 1967, have come to know their worth.
As Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat put it in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed,

Since [1967] the city has maintained freedom of access, movement and religion. Peace-seeking pilgrims of all faiths can again visit the holy places without limitation or restriction. Tourism to Jerusalem is thriving, as is the city’s economy, and its per capita crime rate is among the world’s lowest….
Isn’t it ironic that many in Europe who recently celebrated 25 years of the reunification of Berlin are at the same time calling for the division of another capital on another continent?

And as Barkat went on to ask: “By 2030, the city’s population will expand to one million residents from 800,000 today (33% Muslim, 2% Christian and 65% Jewish). Where does the world suggest we put these extra 200,000 residents?”

If the answer is, “Put them where you want, but make sure you keep some parts off-limits to Jews,” Israel’s answer is: no.
Peace and goodwill to all.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/davidhornik/west-longs-for-jew-free-zones-in-jerusalem/

Senate to go for Handguns!

Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons

Stay informed

In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
To receive updates on this legislation, click here.

Press releases

• Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress, December 17, 2012
• Feinstein Statement on Connecticut School Shooting, December 14, 2012

Summary of 2013 legislation

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
• 120 specifically-named firearms
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
• Background check of owner and any transferee;
• Type and serial number of the firearm;
• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
• Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

A pdf of the bill summary is available here.

Effectiveness of 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban

Following are studies that have been conducted on the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban:

• In a Department of Justice study (pdf), Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal. They write: “Assault weapons are disproportionately involved in murders with multiple victims, multiple wounds per victim, and police officers as victims.”
• Original source (page 2): Jeffrey A. Roth & Christopher S. Koper, “Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994,” The Urban Institute (March 1997).
• In a University of Pennsylvania study (pdf), Christopher Koper reports that the use of assault weapons in crime declined by more than two-thirds by about nine years after 1994 Assault Weapons Ban took effect.
• Original source (page 46): Christopher S. Koper, “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003” (June 2004).
• In a Washington Post story, reporters David Fallis and James Grimaldi write that the percentage of firearms seized by police in Virginia with high-capacity magazines dropped significantly during the Assault Weapons Ban. That figure has doubled since the ban expired.
• Original source: In Virginia, high-yield clip seizures rise. By David S. Fallis and James V. Grimaldi, Washington Post.
• In a letter to the editor in the American Journal of Public Health (pdf), Douglas Weil and Rebecca Knox explain that when Maryland imposed a more stringent ban on assault pistols and high-capacity magazines in 1994, it led to a 55 percent drop in assault pistols recovered by the Baltimore Police Department.
• Original source (pages 297-298): Douglas S. Weil & Rebecca C. Knox, "Letter to the Editor, The Maryland Ban on the Sale of Assault Pistols and High-Capacity Magazines: Estimating the Impact in Baltimore," 87 American Journal of Public Health 2, Feb. 1997, at 297-98.
• A recent study by the Violence Policy Center finds that between 2005 and 2007, one in four law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.
• Original source (pages 6-7): Violence Policy Center, "Target: Law Enforcement—Assault Weapons in the News," (Feb. 2010).
• A report by the Police Executive Research Forum finds that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the Assault Weapons Ban expired.
• Original source (page 2): Police Executive Research Forum, "Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact," (May 2010).

Assault weapons in the news

• NRA misleads on assault weapons (Salon, Dec. 26, 2012)
• "Dems to push for more sweeping assault weapons ban" (Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2012)
• "A conservative case for an assault weapons ban" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 20, 2012)
• "Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control" (New York Times, Dec. 19, 2012)
• "Trying, again, to ban assault weapons" (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 17, 2012)
• "Stop the sale of assault weapons" (San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 17, 2012)
• "Reason to Hope After the Newtown Rampage" (New York Times, Dec. 17, 2012)

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Their plans to control guns go way back! DO YOUR OWN HISTORY SEARCH! In the early 70's John Todd exposes his former family, the Illuminati

Listen from time 27:53 to 29:28!