Wednesday, August 19, 2015




SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

All but one senator who voted to block defunding have accepted cash from abortion group; Deep ties to media organisations revealed
Forty-five of the 46 Senators who voted against defunding Planned Parenthood recently have accepted cash donations from the abortion group, an investigation has found.
In addition, several media organisations and owners also have deep ties to Planned Parenthood.
Kristi Burton Brown of Live Action, a pro-life news organisation, did some digging, and discovered that all but one of the Senators who voted to block legislation that would have diverted funds to non-abortion health clinics have received cash from Planned Parenthood in the past.
Lila Rose, president of Live Action, ( tweeted out the findings:
The article contains a full list of senatorial campaign contributions stemming from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund from the years 1998-2015. It is reprinted at the bottom of this article.
The defunding legislation, introduced by Sen. Joni Ernst, failed to advance in the Senate, falling just seven votes short of the 60 needed. It seems that the blood money handed out to politicians by Planned Parenthood has secured its half a billion taxpayer bounty, for now.
According to Live Action, Sen. Angus King was the only Senator to vote no who has never accepted Planned Parenthood cash.
“In order to fund nearly every Democrat in the U.S. Senate who voted against defunding Planned Parenthood, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPA) and Planned Parenthood Votes (PPV), have spent $1,609,498. Roughly 2/3 of this money was spent in 2012 alone.” Brown notes.
Brown also notes that the abortion giant spent many more millions on ad campaigns in 2012, over 80 percent of which were directly supportive of Obama’s Presidential reelection campaign against Mitt Romney.
“When the millions Planned Parenthood spends to fund these Senators and the President is considered, it should be no surprise that many government leaders constantly regurgitate the abortion giant’s lies.” Brown urges.
“It’s amazing what can be gained from spending $12,000,000 on the highest office in our land.” Brown also notes.
Congress is currently investigating the connection between the Obama administration and Planned Parenthood. Life News notes:
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was to know if the Obama administration, via the Department of Health and Human Services, provided any federal grants to Planned Parenthood that ultimately went to pay for the sales of aborted baby body parts and if they were used by Planned Parenthood to “support transactions involving fetal tissue.”
Committee chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz and subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan have sent a list of demands, aiming to determine the amount of funding and support provided to Planned Parenthood via HHS. Both the abortion company and the Obama administration have until August 28th to reply.
In addition to buying politicians, Planned Parenthood also seems to have the corporate media firmly in its pocket.
Joseph Schaeffer of Crisis, an online Catholic magazine, has discovered that many media organisations have deep ties to the abortion giant.
Schaeffer notes that the owners of USA Today and several other major newspapers are listed as financial supporters, of Planned Parenthood. Additional donors include the San Jose Mercury News, Yahoo, the New York Times Company Foundation, and (owned by Jeff Bezos who owned the Washington Post),
“Some media outlets were so brazen in their support for Planned Parenthood that they were directly listed as donors on the sites of local affiliates.” Schaeffer notes.
Planned Parenthood also has deep ties to corporations and organisations that directly fund major media and television networks.
Schaeffer highlights how “former and even current Planned Parenthood officials themselves are also currently part of the management teams at corporations that own major American media outlets.”
Most notably, the “senior program officer” for the Hearst Foundations, “the charity arm of the Hearst Corporation, which owns the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle and a dizzying array of television and radio interests,” worked for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Planned Parenthood’s “surprisingly close ties to major media corporations can help explain why leading disseminators of the news in the U.S. have shown so little interest in the [fetal organ harvesting] controversy” Schaeffer states.
Senatorial Campaign Contributions from Planned Parenthood Action Fund
(Dated: 1998-June 2015)
Murray(D-WA) – $29,282
Shaheen (D-NH) – $26,000
Boxer (D-CA) – $25,702
Udall (D-NM) – $22,500
Schumer (D-NY) – $20,985
Peters (D-MI) – $20,926
Gillibrand (D-NY) – $19,825
Merkley (D-OR) – $19,762
Stabenow (D-MI) – $19,035
Franken (D-MN) – $19,000
Kirk (R-IL) – $18,000
Baldwin (D-WI) – $16,000
Markey (D-MA) – $15,535
Menendez (D-NJ) – $15,016
Tester (D-MT) – $15,000
Brown (D-OH) – $14,380
Carper (D-DE) – $14,000
Durbin (D-IL) – $14,000
Mikulski (D-MD) – $12,035
Coons (D-DE) – $11,610
Nelson (D-FL) – $11,000
Reed (D-RI) – $10,500
Cantwell (D-WA) – $10,000
Feinstein (D-CA) – $10,000
Heinrich (D-NM) – $10,000
Wyden (D-OR) – $9,535
Warner (D-VA) – $9,000
McCaskill (D-MO) – $8,803
Blumenthal (D-CT) – $8,740
Cardin (D-MD) – $8,535
Hirono (D-HI) – $8,500
Murphy (D-CT) $7,911
Schatz (D-HI) – $7,500
Klobuchar (D-MN) – $7,000
Whitehouse (D-RI) – $7,000
Sanders (I-VT) – $6,535
Booker (D-NJ) – $6,000
Casey (D-PA) – $5,000
Bennet (D-CO) – $4,750
Warren (D-MA) – $3,500
Leahy (D-VT)- $2,500
Heitkamp (D-ND) – $2,396
Kaine (D-VA) – $845
Reid (D-NV) – $824
Planned Parenthood Votes’ Expenditures in Support of Senators or in Opposition to Their Opponents:
(Dated 2012-2013)
Baldwin (D-WI) – $144,058 (2012)
Kaine (D-VA) – $114,615 (2012)
Markey (D-MA) – $62,818 (2013)
Tester (D-MT) – $55,165 (2012)
Brown (D-OH) – $52,003 (2012)
McCaskill (D-MO) – $32,520 (2012)
Murphy (D-CT) – $31,057 (2012)
Rehberg (Tester (D-MT)) – $351,996 (2012)
Allen (Kaine (D-VA)) – $113,176 (2012)
Akin (McCaskill (D-MO) – $67,316 (2012)
Thompson (Baldwin (D-WI)) – $49,807 (2012)


"The Smarter Balanced testing system, expected to be in place for the 2014-15 school year, will be a challenge for both students and teachers, Daugherty said, as the test presents questions that require a deeper thought process. “Not only how they read the question, but how they respond to the question,” he said. “I think they’ll adapt quickly to it, and I hope we can maintain the course of this for several years.” Daugherty said that DCAS data collected from previous years would likely still be valid, as the Department of Education works to create a statistical rubric to aid in analyzing that data. In addition to the “rigorous administration” of the new test, Daugherty said the district has also spent the past two to three years also preparing for the required Common Core State Standards. “I think our teachers and parents all understand that we’re not just working through one grade – we’re working through a system,” he said. “As you go through that system, you’ll see improvements every year. And that’s the part of the data we like to see, it’s very powerful to see as you do it.”"
"EDUCATION SUNDAY: As the new school year begins, we look forward 
to setting aside Sunday morning, August 30, to 
committing our educators and students to the Lord. We 
are pleased to have Dr. Mervin Daugherty, the 
Superintendent of the Red Clay Consolidated School 
District, join us for this special service." 
  • Red Clay promotes from within: Daugherty appointed superintendent; 

  • The Red Clay Board of Education has unanimously appointed Dr. Mervin Daugherty as the next superintendent of the state’s second largest school district.

  • SEE:; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

    • By Antonio Prado
      Posted Mar. 12, 2009 at 12:01 AM
      Updated Mar 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM 

      Mill Creek, Del.

      The Red Clay Board of Education has promoted from within, unanimously appointing Dr. Mervin Daugherty as the next superintendent of the state’s second largest school district.
      Daugherty, in his ninth year as a Red Clay administrator, became the assistant superintendent of academics this school year. Prior to that, he was director of secondary education and of professional development, respectively.
      He came to Red Clay in 2000 to become an assistant principal at John Dickinson High School. The following year, he became the principal of Henry B. duPont Middle School, where he remained for four years. Before that, he spent 14 years in Queen Anne’s County, Md. where he was a secondary school principal and taught government and history for ninth through 11th grade.
      Daugherty will take the helm July 1, replacing retiring Superintendent Dr. Robert J. Andrzejewski. This is Andrzejewski’s 12th year as chief. He announced his retirement in September.
      “Red Clay has been a model for innovation and diversity, and I look forward to continuing, and building upon, our excellent system,” Daugherty said after the March 11 school board meeting at Brandywine Springs School, where he was voted in.
      The board started the work of finding a new superintendent in October, sending a survey to residents and hiring the Institute of Public Administration, a University of Delaware affiliate, to help conduct an anonymous search, according to board member Leah Davis. The district held focus group meetings and narrowed the list to three semifinalists.
      Board Vice President James J. Buckley thanked Andrzejewski for helping the board find the UD Institute, which “did a phenomenal job of keeping us on task.”
      “That’s not an easy thing to do,” he said. “I’d also like to thank the parents and staff who responded to the survey and participated in the focus groups. Your ideas, questions and concerns were all over our interview.”
      The board limited the field of candidates by requiring them to have three years of Delaware public school administrative experience, said President Irwin J. Becnel Jr.
      “Some of us were interested in a smooth transition if there were capable people close by,” Becnel said. “We didn’t know what the financial situation in the state was going to be. I was concerned about going out in a national search and finding somebody who knew nothing about the Delaware education system.”
      The other two semifinalists came from within and without the district, he said, and all were excellent, but Daugherty rose to the top. His salary (listed as $150,000 to $170,000 annually) and contract will be negotiated, Becnel said.
      Daugherty said he understands the complexity of the district and the importance of gaining the confidence of employees, parents and students. He plans to focus on reading and literacy, and said he looks forward to dealing with the challenges of a diverse student body.


Immigration Overload: 

Record 42.1 Million Immigrants in U.S.

QUOTE: "And this explains why Barack Obama allegedly has a plan to use new illegal aliens as “seedlings” to develop a “country within a country” and push “the citizens into the shadows.” It’s the old principle: If you can’t get the people to change the government, you change the people — fundamentally."
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Multiculturalists are fond of saying, “We’re a nation of immigrants” when the United States is actually, as is any healthy country, a nation of citizens. But if current trends continue, we may become a land of disparate and divided immigrants and not really a nation, which involves far more than a political boundary drawn on a map.
New information released by the Census Bureaushows that there are now a record 42.1 million immigrants and illegal migrants in this country; this means the two groups together comprise more than 13 percent of our 320 million population, the highest figure in 105 years. Moreover, the total im(migrant) population has exploded by 1.7 million just since 2014 — with 740,000 people pouring in from Mexico alone.
With such out-of-control migration and the resulting demographic and cultural upheaval becoming ever more obvious, immigration has quickly been elevated to the number-one issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. In fact, businessman Donald Trump has become the GOP frontrunner simply by voicing the immigration concerns of millions of previously voiceless Americans.
With our record migrant population growing against the backdrop of another record — almost 94 million Americans are no longer in the labor force — many citizens are asking: Why are we importing foreign workers when many of our own countrymen are jobless? Is this just Wall Street trampling Main Street for corporate easy street? And it’s not just the low-skilled left in the lurch. Abuse of the H1B-visa program is allowing companies to replace high-skilled citizens with foreigners; in fact, some businesses (such as Disney) throw salt in the wound and actuallyforce the pink-slipped Americans to train their own replacements.         
Yet a country does not live on bread alone, and it is the deeper issues — that the rate of migration long ago exceeded the rate of assimilation — that makes many lose sleep. As pundit Pat Buchanan wrote just yesterday, using Europe as a warning and an example of a larger trend:
Will the West endure or disappear by the century’s end as another lost civilization? Mass immigration, if it continues, will be more decisive in deciding the fate of the West than Islamist terrorism. For the world is invading the West.
A wild exaggeration? Consider.
Monday’s Washington Post had a front-page story on an “escalating rash of violent attacks against refugees” in Germany, including arson attacks on refugee centers and physical assaults.
Buried in the story was an astonishing statistic. Germany, which took in 174,000 asylum seekers last year, is on schedule to take in 500,000 this year. Yet Germany is smaller than Montana.
How long can a geographically limited and crowded German nation, already experiencing ugly racial conflict, take in half a million Third World people every year without tearing itself apart and changing the character of the nation forever?
Do we think the riots and racial wars will stop if more come?
The reality, though, is that Europe is merely following America’s lead. And while it’s certainly unfashionable today to talk about problems inherent in demographic upheaval, none other than liberal icon and “Lion of the Senate” Ted Kennedy tacitly acknowledged such problems. Just consider comments he made when pushing the nation-changing Hart-Celler Act, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965:
First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same….
Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia….
The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.
Note that Kennedy didn’t defend the bill by saying, “Our strength lies in our diversity” (that line was conjured up only when the demographic upheaval became too obvious to deny); he never said it would be a good thing. Rather, accepting the supposition it could be problematic, he claimed it would never happen.
Also note that whether or not Kennedy was lying, history now informs that every one of his reassurances was an untruth. Approximately 250,000 immigrants a year entered the United States before Hart-Celler; about 1,000,000 annually (not counting illegals) have come since it was passed. Ethnically, those of European descent constituted almost 90 percent of the 1965 population; today they’re 63 percent and falling. This is because — again, contrary to Kennedy’s claims — Hart-Celler created a situation in which 85 percent of our immigrants hail from the Third World and Asia. As for inundation “from any one country,” 33 percent of our legal immigrants and 50 to 60 percent of illegals come from Mexico, 64 percent of American Hispanics have origins in that nation, and 34 million Mexican descent people live in the United States — more than one-quarter the population of Mexico itself. And the same phenomenon is evident with respect to El Salvador.
This one-nation inundation matters because it threatens the development of a nation within a nation. As University of Edinburgh professor Stephen Tierney wrote in his 2007 book Multiculturalism and the Canadian Constitution:
In a situation in which immigrants are divided into many different groups originating in distant countries, there is no feasible prospect of any particular immigrant group's challenging the hegemony of the national language and institutions. These groups may form an alliance among themselves to fight for better treatment and accommodations, but such an alliance can only be developed within the language and institutions of the host society and, hence, is integrative. In situations in which a single dominant immigrant group originates in a neighbouring country, the dynamics may be very different. The Arabs in Spain, and Mexicans in the United States, do not need allies among other immigrant groups. One could imagine claims for Arabic or Spanish to be declared a second official language, at least in regions where they are concentrated, and these immigrants could seek support from their neighbouring home country for such claims — in effect, establishing a kind of transnational extension of their original homeland in their new neighbouring country of residence.
Moreover, as Professor Tierney also warned, the problem “is often compounded in situations where the immigrant group has historic claims against the receiving country. ... For example, in the Mexican-United States case.”
Compounding the problem further is that since 46 percent of legal immigrants and approximately 75 percent of illegal migrants are Hispanic, they can ignore traditional U.S. institutions in favor of alternative Spanish-language ones. As to this, note that for the first time ever, Spanish-language network Univision topped all other stations(including the “Big Four,” ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox) in younger-demographic ratings in the July 2013 sweep period.
Most significant, however, is not how new immigrants vote with the remote but how they vote at election time. Upon being naturalized, the Third World and Asian groups constituting 85 percent of our immigrants vote for socialistic candidates by a margin of 70 to 90 percent. In contrast, the GOP derives almost 90 percent of its votes from the shrinking European-descent population. Thus, it’s clear why the American Left seeks to maintain our immigration policies and porous southern border: They are importing their voters.
And this explains why Barack Obama allegedly has a plan to use new illegal aliens as “seedlings” to develop a “country within a country” and push “the citizens into the shadows.” It’s the old principle: If you can’t get the people to change the government, you change the people — fundamentally.

What's in Donald Trump's Immigration Plan?

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Speaking in an exclusive interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd on Meet the Press on August 16, presidential candidate Donald Trump (shown) said that if he were elected president, he would reverse President Obama’s executive orders on immigration and deport all illegal aliens from the United States.
Todd interviewed the real estate magnate aboard Trump’s private plane as it idled on a runway in Des Moines, Iowa, a state that has considerable political importance because its caucuses are usually the first major electoral events of the presidential nominating process.
Trump told Todd “we have to” rescind Obama’s executive order offering those brought to the U.S. illegally as children — known as DREAMers — protection from deportation, as well as Obama's unilateral move to delay deportation for their families.
“We have to make a whole new set of standards” for those immigrating to the United States, NBC News quoted Trump.
Todd questioned Trump about his plan as follows:
TODD: You're going to split up families. You're going to deport children?
TRUMP: Chuck — no, no. No, we're going to keep the families together. We have to keep the families together.
TODD: But, you're going to keep them together out —
TRUMP: But, they have to go. But, they have to go.
TODD: What if they have no place to go?
TRUMP: We will work with them. They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country or we don’t have a country.
Also on August 16, a summary of Trump’s immigration plan was posted on his campaign website, under the headline, “Immigration Reform that Will Make America Great Again.” The post listed three core principles of what it described as “real immigration reform”:
• A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
• A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.
• A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
The post went on to provide specifics of the plan, including how Trump would force Mexico to pay for a wall on our southern border — a diplomatic challenge at the very least. The plan justifies this action by noting that Mexico has taken advantage of the United States by encouraging illegal migration to the north in order to “export the crime and poverty in their own country.” It goes on to note, quite correctly, that “the costs for the United States have been extraordinary,” as U.S. taxpayers have paid “hundreds of billions” in healthcare, housing, education, and welfare costs, for these illegal aliens. The article also addresses the devastating effects of illegal immigration on jobseekers, especially black Americans.
The plan also notes the impact on crime created when criminals cross our borders illegally. The New American has also noted this impact in several articles, including “Obama Administration Has Released 167,000 Illegals With Criminal Records.”
As for how Trump would get Mexico to pay for the cost of a border wall, he would not necessarily expect the Mexicans to pay us, but would recoup the cost as follows:
• Impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages (money sent back to relatives in Mexico by illegals working in the United States);
• Increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats;
• Increase fees on all border crossing cards;
• Increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico;
• Increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico, and (possibly);
• Increase tariffs and cut foreign aid.
It is impossible to determine, without knowing what steps the Mexican government might take in retribution, how many of these steps would be effective and how many would produce negative economic fallout.
Other parts of Trump’s plan will probably receive a more unquestioned positive response from constitutionalists, including those falling under the category: “Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States.” These steps include:
• Tripling the number of ICE officers. 
• Implementing a nationwide e-verify system.
This proposal will not sit well with those who value Americans’ right to privacy, who will see it as an invitation for more government snooping on innocent Americans. Former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), among others, has warned that this national ID scheme would allow federal bureaucrats to collect biometric information — potentially including fingerprints, retinal scans, and more — that could (and likely would) be eventually used as a tracking device. It would also make it illegal for anyone to work in the United States without obtaining the national ID, which is likely the motivation for proposing it in the first place. Trump's proposal goes on:
• Mandatory return of all criminal aliens to their home countries. 
• Detention of those illegally crossing our borders until they are deported — not catch-and-release. 
• Defunding sanctuary cities which refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement.
• Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa.
• Cooperation by ICE officers with local gang task forces against gangs composed of illegal aliens.
• Ending birthright citizenship for the children born in the United States of parents who are here illegally.
To put the immigration issue in perspective, some background information is in order: Among the Obama administration’s most widespread amnesty programs was one giving special privileges to the “DREAMers” as part of the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA began with an executive action ordered by President Obama and was prompted by his frustration with the failure of Congress to pass the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act). After two Congresses failed to pass the act, Obama unilaterally decided to implement it anyway, and on June 15, 2012, he announced that his administration would stop deporting young illegal immigrants who met certain criteria previously proposed under the DREAM Act. 
DACA was formally initiated by a policy memorandum sent from Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano in 2012 to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ordering them to practice “prosecutorial discretion” toward some individuals who were brought to this country illegally as children and have remained in the country illegally. Napolitano’s successor, Jeh Johnson, continued the amnesty when he an executive action memorandum on November 20 to the heads of the same federal agencies entitled: “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and With Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents.”
U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville issued an injunction on February 16 that blocked Johnson from implementing the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program and expanded DACA by removing its age cap and extending work authorization for some illegal aliens to three years.
In summation, the Trump immigration plan will likely appeal to conservatives and constitutionalists who see the unchecked flow of illegal immigrants into our nation and our poor border enforcement as an economic burden, a contributor to our nation’s crime rate, and a threat to our very sovereignty. Trump's appeal to this same constituency on other issues, however, remains to be seen.


Health Experts Paid To Lie
Published on Aug 19, 2015
Jakari Jackson and Lee Ann McAdoo break down how quite a few of the "impartial" scientists you see talking about food safety might not be as impartial as you think.