Tuesday, October 20, 2020

TONIGHT: Oct. 20th - Craig Johnson to speak at Madison


Journalist, news analyst and commentator

Craig Johnson

will be the Guest Speaker

Tuesday, October 20th,  6:30 - 8:30 PM

at  the Madison County Republican Women's meeting

The menu features Corn Beef and Cabbage, great sides and desserts by MCRW members. Dinner: $8.

Everyone is invited to attend this informative meeting. 

CDC Advice in Place for social distancing.

Location: Fellowship Baptist Church, 725 Gate Road, Madison, www.fbcmva.com.

For more information, call (540) 923-4109.


Saturday, August 22, 2020

FRC's New Pro-Life Map Shows Which States Fund Planned Parenthood and Other Abortion Centers

August 18, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today Family Research Council released the fourth in a series of interactive pro-life maps, tracking state funding of the abortion industry through three principal funding streams: Medicaid, Title X family planning funds, and state appropriations.

Twenty-three states have defunded (or attempted to defund) abortions with taxpayer dollars. (Some efforts have been stalled or stopped by the courts.)

  • Texas is the only state to have defunded (or attempted to defund) abortions and abortion providers in Medicaid, Title X and state appropriations, and to have been granted a Section 1115 waiver from the Trump Administration to divert federal Medicaid funds away from abortion providers.
  • Six additional states have good laws that defund abortion providers in the three principle funding streams: Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
  • Sixteen states have only partial defunding laws (not addressing all three principle funding streams) and/or temporary defunding policies (executive orders, state budgets, etc.): Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.
  • Another 14 states have not taken any action to defund abortion providers: Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming. (States that merely enacted a "state Hyde Amendment," duplicating federal protections in Medicaid, are not credited on this map with having taken a significant step in defunding abortion providers.)
  • Thirteen states have taken steps to directly fund abortions and abortion providers with taxpayer dollars: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

As early as 1976, Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) lead the effort to ban federal funding for abortions in Medicaid, one of the largest government health care programs. Despite the federal Hyde Amendment and ongoing congressional and state efforts to restrict taxpayer dollars from flowing to the abortion industry, the abortion industry receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year.

Quena Gonz??lez, Director of State and Local Affairs at Family Research Council, said: "For too long, Planned Parenthood--America's largest abortion company--has taken millions of dollars every year in taxpayer money. Most of that money flows through the states, giving governors and state legislators tremendous opportunities to defund the abortion industry. FRC's map highlights state actions to restrict or stop that flow. Since 1976 the federal Hyde Amendment has recognized the principle that taxpayers should not underwrite abortions or the abortion industry. It's time for Congress and the states to finish Congressman Hyde's work. This map shows voters where states have or have not acted to turn off the main funding streams the abortion industry uses to siphon off taxpayer dollars."

Connor Semelsberger, Legislative Assistant for Pro-life Issues at Family Research Council, remarked: "With renewed efforts to repeal the federal Hyde Amendment which bans federal funding for elective abortions, and the push in some states to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, it is vitally important to pass laws protecting taxpayers from subsidizing abortion. Now more than ever states must do what they can to separate taxpayer funds from the abortion industry. Abortion is not healthcare and should not be funded as such."

To see if your state provides funding for abortions, visit: http://frc.org/prolifemaps.

Tuesday, August 18, 2020

FRC's New Pro-Life Map Shows Which States Fund Planned Parenthood and Other Abortion Centers

August 18, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today Family Research Council released the fourth in a series of interactive pro-life maps, tracking state funding of the abortion industry through three principal funding streams: Medicaid, Title X family planning funds, and state appropriations.

Twenty-three states have defunded (or attempted to defund) abortions with taxpayer dollars. (Some efforts have been stalled or stopped by the courts.)

  • Texas is the only state to have defunded (or attempted to defund) abortions and abortion centers in Medicaid, Title X and state appropriations, and to have been granted a Section 1115 waiver from the Trump Administration to divert federal Medicaid funds away from abortion providers.
  • Six additional states have good laws that defund abortion providers in the three principle funding streams: Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Mississippi.
  • Sixteen states have only partial defunding laws (not addressing all three principle funding streams) and/or temporary defunding policies (executive orders, state budgets, etc.): Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.
  • Another 14 states have not taken any action to defund abortion providers: Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming. (States that merely enacted a "state Hyde Amendment," duplicating federal protections in Medicaid, are not credited on this map with having taken a significant step in defunding abortion providers.)
  • Thirteen states have taken steps to directly fund abortions and abortion organizations with taxpayer dollars: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

As early as 1976, Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) lead the effort to ban federal funding for abortions in Medicaid, one of the largest government health care programs. Despite the federal Hyde Amendment and ongoing congressional and state efforts to restrict taxpayer dollars from flowing to the abortion industry, the abortion industry receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year.

Quena González, Director of State and Local Affairs at Family Research Council, said: "For too long, Planned Parenthood--America's largest abortion company--has taken millions of dollars every year in taxpayer money. Most of that money flows through the states, giving governors and state legislators tremendous opportunities to defund the abortion industry. FRC's map highlights state actions to restrict or stop that flow. Since 1976 the federal Hyde Amendment has recognized the principle that taxpayers should not underwrite abortions or the abortion industry. It's time for Congress and the states to finish Congressman Hyde's work. This map shows voters where states have or have not acted to turn off the main funding streams the abortion industry uses to siphon off taxpayer dollars."

Connor Semelsberger, Legislative Assistant for Pro-life Issues at Family Research Council, remarked: "With renewed efforts to repeal the federal Hyde Amendment which bans federal funding for elective abortions, and the push in some states to use Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, it is vitally important to pass laws protecting taxpayers from subsidizing abortion. Now more than ever states must do what they can to separate taxpayer funds from the abortion industry. Abortion is not healthcare and should not be funded as such."


Friday, August 14, 2020

Quote of the Day


"Asked this week if she would accept an offer to serve in the Biden/Harris administration, Hillary Clinton responded, "I'm ready to help in any way I can." Maybe if she goes back to the State Department, she can find those 30,000 missing emails!"

Gary Bauer 

Thursday, August 13, 2020

EMET APPLAUDS THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES AND ISRAEL FOR ACHIEVING HISTORIC PEACE DEAL

 
Washington, D.C., August 13, 2020

On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Israel and the United Arab Emirates reached an historic peace deal that will lead to full normalization of diplomatic relations between the two Middle Eastern nations. President Donald Trump and other White House officials assisted in brokering the agreement. The official agreement will be known as the Abraham Accords and is considered the first of its kind since the signing of a peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994. A condition of the deal includes the suspension of Israel's plan to extend sovereignty over parts of Judea and Samaria.
 
On a private conference call with the White House that EMET was invited to, Ambassador David Friedman said, "In the diplomatic world, there is no higher echelon than peace." Ambassador Friedman also stated that this deal "does not in any way require Israel to cancel the idea of Israeli sovereignty (over parts of Judea and Samaria, or the West Bank, and the Jordan Valley) but to suspend it. It is very difficult to go down these two roads at once. We prioritize peace above everything else. It is a suspension, not a cancellation of the sovereignty issue. It is just a question of what you feel to be the most important, and I think that we can all agree that peace is above all else."
 
EMET is profoundly grateful to all parties involved for having the courage and vision to move forward with such an unprecedented agreement. Peace in the Middle East can only be achieved if there is mutual respect and shared vision for a peaceful future between the nations that reside there. EMET is hopeful that this deal will be a force for peace and security in the region. We are hopeful that the Abraham Accords will pave the way for much needed additional peaceful relationships between Israel and its neighbors. 
 
Over the past few decades Israel has tried tirelessly to reach peace agreements with all of her neighbors. In 1979 Israel inked a deal with Egypt, and in 1994 with Jordan. Unfortunately, the disengagement from Gaza created the opposite effect, forcing Israel to defend its borders. Nonetheless, Israel has never stopped trying to pursue peace and will continue to do so with the Palestinian Authority as well with other Arab nations that it is currently in talks with. On this momentous occasion, EMET celebrates not only Israel's new agreement with the UAE, but also Israel's steadfast and eternal commitment to being a secure homeland for the Jewish people. It is noteworthy that this treaty did not expect Israel to give up land. It shows that Israel is valued, and brings to the table sophisticated high tech and cyber capabilities, which is extremely valuable to the way that conflicts are being conducted around the world, today.

Says President and Founder of EMET, Sarah Stern, "Today is a momentous day. This is a historic breakthrough. This shows that another major Sunni Arab nation has finally come to accept that Israel is here to stay and that it has a great deal more to gain by living and working side by side together and penetrating through the decades of old animosities. Both Israel and the United Arab Emirates understand that the real threat to the region remains the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is a peace that I hope will endure for generations to come, and that one-day Israeli and Emirati children will be able to develop the bonds of friendship together and will work together for a just society."


Founded in 2005, The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) is a Washington, D.C. based think tank and policy center with an unabashedly pro-America and pro-Israel stance. EMET (which means truth in Hebrew) prides itself on challenging the falsehoods and misrepresentations that abound in U.S. Middle East policy.

28 Minutes to Apprehend a Predator

IRLI investigation finds Montgomery County's cooperation with ICE "a joke"

WASHINGTON—After elected officials in Montgomery County, Md., announced that they had reversed their non-cooperation policy with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a result of public pressure from a slew of sexual crimes by illegal aliens, an investigation by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) shows that the sanctuary county is not acting in good faith to notify ICE when illegal aliens charged with crimes are released into the community.

Through data obtained from the county, IRLI's investigation found that while local officials had pledged to cooperate with ICE agents and to allow them in identified areas of detention centers, they are only giving ICE agents extremely small windows of time to arrive at their facilities, which means dangerous illegal aliens are being released to the community before ICE agents can arrive to assume custody of them.   

In one of the most flagrant examples of this practice, the county gave ICE 28 minutes of notice before releasing into the community an illegal alien charged with second-degree rape and sexual abuse. When ICE issues a request to detain an illegal alien in custody, it typically asks the local law enforcement agency to notify ICE and hold the alien for at least 48 hours.  

Timestamps obtained by IRLI show that Montgomery County officials gave very abrupt and inadequate notifications. Since the county announced its policy change calling for greater cooperation with ICE, it has booked at least 84 criminal aliens subjected to ICE detainers since November 1, 2019 (when the policy change was announced) and June 5, 2020. Of those, 56 ICE detainers were deemed "valid." Among these "valid" detainers, IRLI found at least eight examples of aliens being released after the county gave less than a four-hour notification.

When contacted by IRLI for a clarification on the definition of a "valid" detainer, a spokesperson for the county said only that the "Department of Correction and Rehabilitation honors ICE detainers received for undocumented individuals, charged or convicted of serious crimes." However, the spokesperson did not respond to a subsequent request asking for what constitutes a "serious" crime. 

"Montgomery County claims to be cooperating with ICE, but the implementation of this policy is a joke," said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director of general counsel of IRLI. "The data suggests a very cynical attempt to claim cooperation while doing the bare minimum to uphold it. The losers in this are the residents of Montgomery County, where aliens charged with serious crimes roam free and avoid removal from the country they may deserve."

In such situations, ICE agents usually travel from the agency's Baltimore field office to pick up aliens from Montgomery County jails. The Baltimore-Washington area has some of the nation's most congested roads. Even under ideal traffic conditions, a drive between Baltimore and a Montgomery County city like Rockville can take more than 45 minutes.

Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich signed into law the "Promoting Community Trust Executive Order" in July 2019. While the county was already considered a sanctuary jurisdiction as it did not honor ICE detainer requests, the new order further restricted ICE's ability to catch criminal aliens by prohibiting county law enforcement from asking an individual about their immigration status and largely barred them from cooperating with ICE agents. Shortly after the announcement, the county arrested illegal aliens in a slew of rape and sexual assault cases, with underage girls victimized in a number of incidents.

After an exhaustive study of crime data, IRLI in 2019 ranked Montgomery County seventh in its list of America's Ten Worst Sanctuary Communities.


Wednesday, August 12, 2020

"White House Siege"

By Gary Bauer
 
The radical group behind the Occupy Wall Street movement is back. This time it is setting its sights on the White House. The group is calling on activists to "lay siege to the White House" for 50 days. The "revolution" begins on September 17th. 

Remember the chaos BLM activists created outside the White House not that long ago? Dozens of Secret Service agents were injured. They want those images on the nightly news every night for 50 days leading up to November 3rd.

Make no mistake about it: This chaos and turmoil is part of the radical left's strategy to destabilize America. And it comes at a time when the nation is already deeply divided and on edge about foreign interference in our elections.

Thursday, August 6, 2020

America’s Elections: Fair Or Foul?

By Kim Smith

 

American citizens have a "sacred duty and responsibility" to take part in our republican form of government (we're not a democracy!).  That right and duty is voting.  Yet, increasingly, the protections that ensure a fair and honest election are being whittled away.

 

Mail-in voting appears to be the latest assault on the system.  "Mail-in voting, unless changed by the courts, will result in the most CORRUPT ELECTION in our Nation's History!  #RIGGEDELECTION", President Trump recently tweeted.

 

Others suggest that it's an okay practice, "with safeguards in place" or "if done properly".  The difficulty seems to lie in those safeguards or lack thereof.  Some states actually only do by-mail voting (no place to physically cast a ballot).  Some states send ballot applications to ALL who are on the voter rolls – whether they've moved, whether they're registered in multiple states, whether they've died…you get the picture.  Others send the actual ballots.  The Government Accountability Institute warns that if this is expanded to the nation, 24 million ballots will be delivered this year to ineligible voters. 

 

California recently eliminated one of those safeguards – authorizing ballot harvesting (illegal in most of the country) whereby "helpful" citizens "sweep through every nursing home in the state, get the patients to sign a blank ballot, and offer to FILL IT OUT FOR THEM AND TURN IT IN – AS A PUBLIC SERVICE, OF COURSE". (emphasis added)  There are also the so-called ballot "brokers" that prey on the "poor, elderly and minority communities". 

 

Persons such as Elizabeth Warren have allegedly demanded "that all jurisdictions be prohibited from actually cleaning their voter rolls".  (Pew Charitable Trust report indicated one in eight voter registrations are "significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.)  But this is usually not done through the legislative process with elected officials making the decision – but by "politically motivated and compromised bureaucrats".  It has also been alleged that Politico is already "gearing up to air digital ads in battleground states on how to cheat vote by mail".

 

Mail-in voting, supported by the cheating system, has been documented by the Heritage Foundation to have at least 20 voter fraud cases that resulted in overturned elections between 1992 and 2018.  One New York candidate convinced voters to give their ballots to his campaign, which dutifully altered the ballots, inserting his name in place of the preferred candidate.  Notaries were paid to steal ballots from mailboxes and vote the ballots in place of the intended voters.    And the list goes on – but the facts don't.  "The absentee ballot is the 'tool of choice' for those engaging in election fraud" or "Vote by mail is a disaster" (Public Legal Interest Foundation).

 

Then there's the case of the 28 million ballots that are still missing (between 2012 and 2018- 6 million unaccounted mail-in ballots were never counted in 2016 – President Trump's year) according to the federal Election Assistance Commission.  Where they are is anyone's guess – but ballots have been found in trays at post offices (or in illegal bundles), outside apartment complexes, on community bulletin boards, and the all-time receptacle – the trash.

 

With the increase in mail-in voting, there have been NO new safeguards, scrutiny, or additional research on the risks of this practice.

 

And since this is a relatively new way to avoid honesty and fairness and "one man, one vote", the money has started emerging.   On the conservative side, organizations such as Judicial Watch, the Honest Elections Project, True the Vote and the Public Interest Legal Foundation are spending vast sums litigating cases across the US -or suing where voter rolls haven't been properly maintained.

 

On the other side, the Democrats are pushing to eliminate "hurdles" such as the required witness signature or allowing third parties to collect the ballots.  They're mounting legal challenges that threaten voting laws championed by conservatives and sending thousands and more directly to cities in various states.

 

All this threatens the fairness and integrity we seek in our government and its systems.  As Ben Franklin said to the question whether we had a monarchy or a Republic, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

 

 

 

Schools – To Open Or Not To Open: How Is the Question

By Kim Smith

 

COVID-19 has run roughshod over America, and aside from the economy which is topsy-turvy, another of its major impacts is on the education of our children.  A large part of the problem is the disease's capriciousness; the other is how little is actually known definitively.  This means that flexibility will be a major aspect of any decisions, particularly if the disease enters a second phase, or like the Spanish Flu of 1918 that killed an estimated 50 million, goes into a 3rd phase.

 

What we know in relation to schools is that most studies indicate children do best when physically present in school buildings with teachers at the core.  Virtual learning is simply not a substitute – and some have suggested it's "an utter failure".  We also know that for those of any age who travel to the worst end of the spectrum, it is a "terrifying" disease (as stated by a UVA researcher studying interlukin 13- which activates the "killer cells", triggering cytokine storms and turning the body against itself).

 

How schools should open given these basic premises is the topic of USA-wide discussions.  In mid-July, Ballotpedia reviewed each state's approach to the issue – and they were all over the boards.  "Plans" ranged from 5 day-a-week in school to hybrid to all virtual learning.  Some had voluminous and specific guidance from the state; others in the hybrid realm had general recommendations to follow CDC guidance and let the individual school boards decide.

 

What is not known without question fills volumes.  What about the students themselves?  Their ages, attention spans and abilities to utilize technology?  Their self-motivation?  Their nutritional needs? Available adult supervision if learning at home?  How many have underlying conditions?  Do they even transmit the disease?

 

The teachers in a physical setting are a major consideration.  Ages?  Underlying health problems that make them more vulnerable?  The fact that the major workers' compensation has stated that proving exposure to COVID in the workplace would make successful compensation claims unlikely – leading to large medical bills without teachers, with reduced incomes, having access to enough money to pay?

 

Could those teachers who should NOT be exposed be placed in charge of the various virtual learning curriculum?  Would Saturday on-line school make sense since many parents are off on weekends so teachers and parents would be available to instruct and supervise?

 

Parents in a hybrid or total virtual world need to be considered.  How many are single parents?  One or both who need to work to provide for their family?  Have the commitment to ensure that their children are learning as much as possible?  Have the level of education to support virtual learning?  Have the patience?

 

Of course, virtual learning brings up the issue of broadband, to which so many of our children do not have access in the first place. Have the schools established fixed and/or mobile hotspots (they have taxpayer funded high speed internet and parking lots)?  Are there public hotspots in the county?  Are there public or private facilities convenient to students where they could go – and how do they get there?  Under this scenario, it's possible we could have small group learning centers – again with an adult supervising, that could help fill in some of the gaps.

 

The physical buildings themselves raise a number of questions.   What are the buildings capacities?  Are they such that they lend themselves to reduced class sizes?   Some plans call for repurposing rooms – such as the libraries, the gyms, the auditoriums, the cafeterias – since almost all plans call for no congregate eating – to reduce class sizes and facilitate social distancing.  What changes would have to be implemented to cleaning, since it would be more like sterilizing?  And should the set-up include no students traveling to different classes but rather teachers traveling, with their supplies, to teach a different subject, again to minimize exposures?

 

On the issue when students are actually traveling to the physical building – the bus transportation – there is some consensus in the plans.  One student per seat, masked, with parents doing delivery and pick-up where possible, seems to be rather universal.

 

Then there are the real elephants in the room - masks.  They are recommended for all students aged 10 and older, not for those under 9.  How many schools have both children 10 and up AND 9 and under?  How do schools enforce that?  And the real question is, how well do they work?  There are a number of studies that indicate that surgical masks and cloth masks don't.   Some indicate they reduce needed oxygen intake that accompanies unmasked breathing; others challenge their ability to filer out 0.1 microns – the size of the virus.   Some also suggest that they increase the likelihood of disease transmission, COVID and otherwise.

 

The biggest of all elephants is MONEY.  An increasing number of commentaries challenge the money that our property taxes pay into the school system, particularly if it's going to a primarily virtual teaching method.   With administrators having fewer things to administer; with less maintenance of the empty buildings; with fewer or no miles on the buses; with no or delayed sports; with less access to supplies and equipment normally provided within the schools…. should some of the money be diverted to families to find "safe, effective places where children can learn" or "increase assistance to facilities and programs that can provide support to expand capacity" or to private schools, or to homeschool consortiums, or to "Remote Learning Academies" geographically placed in community centers, church halls, empty business conference rooms"  that can meet the physical requirements placed upon parents and children by COVID-19?        

 

The school system has some serious challenges facing it with serious potential consequences.  If they identify areas where help is needed, it would be well to remember that this is a whole community issue.  Administrators should consider reaching out to those community-sponsored organizations (e.g., fire, rescue, veterans service organizations, and others with physical locations).