Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Saturday, March 19, 2016

If You Think Obama Administration Is Not Open Now, Wait Until He Gets Re-Elected Of If We Are Wrong And Hillary Gets Elected

President Obama
President Obama
An annual report by the Associated Press shows the Obama administration’s claim to be the most transparent ever to be a categorically untrue.

A review of all Freedom of Information Act requests to 100 federal agencies during fiscal 2015 revealed a record for the number of times the White House couldn’t find a single page requested by journalists and citizens.
Government researchers “completed” 129,825 requests – one in six cases – by telling individuals or organizations they came up empty-handed, AP reported Friday. Approximately 77 percent of all requests were closed out after censored or blank files were released, a jump of 12 percent since Obama first took office.
“It’s incredibly unfortunate when someone waits months, or perhaps years, to get a response to their request – only to be told that the agency can’t find anything,” Adam Marshall, an attorney with the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the news service.
AP said the Obama administration had a peculiar habit of finding documents after organizations filed expensive federal lawsuits. When Gawker sued the State Department over documents related to former Secretary of Hillary Clinton’s aide Philippe Reines, for example, the Obama administration suddenly found 90,000 documents; it had initially found zero.
“I want to avoid FOIA,” Reines said in one email, which his lawyer later claimed was a joke.
The federal government is supposed to undertake a good-faith effort in finding documents, but there is no way for journalists or citizens to know if that actually happened.
“It seems like they’re doing the minimal amount of work they need to do,” said Jason Leopold, an investigative reporter at Vice News and a leading expert on the records law, AP reported. “I just don’t believe them. I really question the integrity of their search.”
The White House defends its efforts by saying it completed a record 769,903 requests last fiscal year, a 19 percent increase over 2014. AP was quick to note, however, that government employees also increased the number of times they could not find anything by 35 percent.
Some of the other findings from the report include:
  • The FBI failed to find records in 39 percent of cases, or 5,168 times.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency regional office that oversees New York and New Jersey failed to find records 58 percent of the time.
  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection were unsuccessful in finding results in 34 percent of cases.
  • That government counted 250,024 times when it could not find records, a person refused to pay for documents or the government determined the request to be unreasonable or improper.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest tried to deflect attention away form Obama and onto Congress.

“Congress writes the rules and they write themselves out of being accountable,” Earnest told reporters, AP reported. “[Reporters should] continue the pressure that [they] have applied to Congress to encourage them to subject themselves to the same kinds of transparency rules that they insist other government agencies follow.”
Copyright 2016 WND


If Nuns Can Be Forced To Pay For Abortions, What Other Religious Doctrine Stand Withstand The Obama Onslaught?

The Obama administration believes it is permitted under the Constitution to force religious organizations to pay for abortions, according to the newest brief filed in the long-running case brought by the nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in the case, which consolidates cases from the Third, Fifth, 10th, and D.C. circuits. If the vote ends up 4-4, due to the absence of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the lower-court rulings, most of which favored the administration, will stand.
The new brief on behalf of the nuns and several other organizations challenges an Obamacare requirement that their employee health insurance plans cover abortion pills despite their religious beliefs.
The brief says the government “fails to explain why it exempts – not ‘accommodates,’ but truly exempts – some religious employers if compliance via the regulatory mechanism imposes no substantial burden.”
“The government insists that it does so as a matter of administrative grace and ‘special solicitude’ for churches, and that nothing in RFRA requires the exemption,” the brief says.
“Thus, in the government’s view, it could eliminate the exemption for churches tomorrow. That is astonishing enough, but it fails to grapple with the reality that by granting the exemption the government has already conceded that it does not have a compelling interest in demanding compliance from religious employers who are more likely to hire people who share their religious objections,” the brief explains.
“But the government has no more compelling interest in demanding compliance from petitioners, who share the same statutory entitlement to hire people who share their own faith as the exempted employers,” the brief says. “Nor can the government escape the reality that the mandate’s secular exemptions and the government’s own concessions regarding them doom its least-restrictive means defense. The government claims that asking whatever subset of petitioners’ employees who actually want contraceptive coverage to obtain it through an exchange would ‘inflict tangible injury’ that cannot be tolerated. But the government itself champions the exchanges not a dozen pages earlier in its brief as one of several acceptable paths through which the tens of millions of employees whose employers are already exempt can obtain contraceptive coverage.”
Despite the written law, the Obama administrative has granted exemptions to the abortion-pill requirement to many employers, including major corporations and churches.
Yet it has singled out several faith organizations, such as the nuns who run senior care centers worldwide and Christian colleges.
“The government simply cannot explain why what it deems sufficient for all the other individuals who lack access to an employer-sponsored plan with contraceptive coverage (whether because of the religious exemption, the grandfathered plans exemption, or the small business exemption) is somehow too burdensome for petitioners’ employees,” the brief says.

The brief was submitted by attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom, Bancroft PLLC, Bradley S. Typi, Locke Lord LLP, Wynne and Wynne LLP and the Becket Fund, who are representing the parties challenging the Obamacare requirement.
The brief points out that Congress determined it was not imperative to apply the abortion mandate to everyone and found in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that “all those whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by the federal government – not just the lucky few favored by the executive – are entitled to an exemption when imposing that burden is not imperative.”
“This court need do nothing more in this case than honor those congressional judgments,” the brief says. “Conscripting nuns, seminaries, and other religious nonprofits to facilitate access to something as obviously religiously sensitive as contraceptives and abortifacients substantially burdens their religious exercise, as even the government implicitly recognizes when it comes to churches.”
The government has told the plaintiffs they have the option of having a third party provide the abortion pill coverage.
But the nuns explained that facilitating the delivery of abortifacients in any way, even signing a document, violates their deeply held faith.
“What the government really wants from petitioners is the plan infrastructure and contractual relationships that it needs to achieve the ‘seamless’ provision of contraceptive coverage to petitioners’ employees.”
Further, there’s evidence of an intent to harm the plaintiffs, the brief contends.
“Indeed, the government itself admits that it already has the identity of several petitioners’ insurers and TPAs, and even believes that it has identified a third party willing to provide the coverage in each of those instances … yet it still has not deemed those petitioners in compliance or relented in its demand for massive fines.
“If all the government needed from the Little Sisters was to know that ‘they believe that it is religiously wrong for them to facilitate the provision of contraceptive procedures … then there would be no need to continue threatening them with massive fines.”
The brief also charges it’s “nonsense” to claim that the nuns’ problem is with signing over authority to the government to provide contraceptives.
“The religious significance of signing a piece of paper will often depend on its consequences. Signing an autograph and signing a death warrant are not the same,” the brief informed the court.
The bottom line is that it is the “religious adherent and not the government … who gets to define her religious scruples.”
The brief also says the government cannot explain why some are exempted, such as churches, while church-like organizations, such as the nuns, are not.
“Petitioners – no less than churches and their auxiliaries – are not just likely to employ people who share their faith; they have the exact same statutory entitlement to employ only people who do so.”
Sr. Loraine Marie Maguire, mother provincial of the Little Sisters of the Poor, argued the government “already exempts one in three Americans from this mandate, and it has given big government programs and big companies like Exxon and Visa the freedom to decide not to comply with the mandate, even just for reasons of cost or convenience.”
“‘Protecting our ability to care for the elderly poor ought to be at least as important as helping big business save a few dollars,” she said.
“The government must have been hoping the justices wouldn’t read their whole brief in one sitting,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund. “They defend these massive exemptions by saying that the exchanges are great and easy to use. But then they blast the same exchanges as lousy and hard to use for any Little Sisters employee. The brief is going to give the justices whiplash from trying to keep up with those contradictions.”
As WND reported, dozens of people and groups, including Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Native American, Catholic and Protestant, have filed legal documents in support of the Little Sisters.
A friend of the court brief from the Thomas More Law Center  said if the appeal is lost, the government “becomes the head of every religious denomination in the country by its assumed authority to determine what is in fact a sin.”
The Becket Fund, which is representing the nuns, has posted online the briefs, submitted by 20 states, 13 law professors, 207 members of Congress, 50 Catholic theologians, Agudas Harabbanim of the U.S., American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Islamic Congress, Assemblies of God, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Colorado Christian University, Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, Carmelite Sisters of the Most Sacred Heart of Los Angeles, Cato Institute, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Members of the Lipan Apache Tribe, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, former Justice Department officials and many others.

Copyright 2016 WND


Ever Try To Stop An Avalanche? Its The Same With The Trump Campaign. Nearly Impossible

ABC News: Anti-Trump Media Spending Pegged at $63 Million

Image: ABC News: Anti-Trump Media Spending Pegged at $63 MillionDonald Trump (Photo by JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)
By Todd Beamon   |   Friday, 18 Mar 2016 08:41 PM
More than $63 million has been spent on advertising on radio and television blasting Donald Trump since the Republican front-runner won the New Hampshire primary in February — nine times what was doled out beforehand.

In the first three days of this week alone, forces trying to block Trump spent $7.6 million on ads, according to an analysis by ABC News, representing two of every three ad dollars spent by Republicans.
"This means anti-Trump advertising increased 900 percent between the first two weeks in February and the days before the crucial March 15 contests in Florida and Ohio," the report said.

Despite outspending Trump by three times so far, the front-runner continues to rack up wins in state primaries and caucuses.
Latest News Update
"The situation is fluid regarding how these stop Trump campaigns will move forward," a close to the anti-Trump efforts told ABC News. "Decisions will be made over the coming days as to the best use of resources: continue a public advertising campaign to further expose Trump's record and slow his primary momentum or work on a delegate strategy at the GOP convention."

ABC News analyzed data from CMAG/Kantar Media.

The biggest spender so far in the current cycle is the Conservative Solutions PAC, which backed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who dropped out of the race on Tuesday.
The group has spent nearly $20 million, ABC News reports.

The next is the Right to Rise USA super PAC, which backed Jeb Bush. The former Sunshine State governor quit the race last month.
© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Breaking News at
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!