Global Warming that's man-made have been exposed. The climate agenda agenda is used in Australia to force expensive home inspections. All Australian homes will have to have a mandatory energy-efficiency assessment. It can cost up to $1500 per property before they can be sold or rented under new laws to tackle carbon emissions. This mandatory assessment being drafted into law by the federal and state governmetns will rate homes by an energy efficiency star system. This is similar to the ratings given to fridges and washing machiens. It will apply to all commercial properties from alter this year and to all residential properties from May 2011 as Adelaide Now reports. Minister Pat Conlon, who is a spokesman for State Energy, said that the ratings would inform propsective owners or tenants of a building's energy use. So, they oculd factor it in ot their buying or rental decision. The spokesman proclaimed details of the "Mandatory Disclosure" scheme including who would carry out the assessments and how much they would cost were yet to be decided. Energy efficiency expert Arthur Grammatopoulos, of Helica Architecture, said rating properties could cost up to $1500 per house. "I think this is a positive move for the industry but the question has to be asked, will there be enough experts to cope with demand when the law is introduced?" he said. A similar scheme with a six-star rating has been operating in the Australian Capital Territory's property market for several years. The Queensland's State Government introduced a mandatory Sustainability Declaration from on January 1 requiring homeowners to declare their property's green credentials to prospective buyers or risk a $2000 fine. Mandatory disclosure has been criticized by property experts as an unwarranted expense that will not influence purchasing decisions or cut household pollution. The Real Estate Institute of SA said governments were playing environmentally "popular politics" by introducing a law that they say will simply add to the cost of selling and renting a home. "I think they are patronising people who are making the biggest purchase decision of their life by thinking a rating system will influence that decision," REISA chief executive Greg Troughton said. "It's already hard enough to buy and sell a home and this is just another financial impost that also has the potential to delay the sale of a property." Mr. Troughton said vendors would bear the cost of having their home rated by a licensed expert, independent SA MLC and former Valuer-General John Darley said landlords would look to pass the cost on to tenants. He believed that it would be an extra cost to working families who have to rent because they can't afford a mortgage. He said that this isn't necessary and no benefit would come to people. The Council of Australian Government's National Strategy on Energy Efficiency says that mandatory disclosure will help household and businesses prepare for the introduction of the carbon pollution reduction scheme.
Elizabeth Cohen from CNN on February 6, 2010 wrote about how the government has baby DNA. Annie Brown's daughter is named Isabel. She was a month old when her pediatrician asked Brown and her husband to sit down. The pediatrician told them that Isabel carried a gene that put her at risk for cystic fibrosis. This information is crucial to Isabel, but Isabel recieved further testing and it showed that she doesn't have the disease. The Mankato, Minnesota couple wondered how the doctor knew about Isabel's genes in the first place. After all, they'd never consented to genetic testing. The pediatricians answered to this reality that newborn babies in America are routinely screened for a panel of genetic diseases. Since the testing is mandated by the government, it's often done without the parents' consent according to Brad Therrell (or the Director of the national Newborn Screening & Genetics Resource Center). In many states like Florida where Isabel was born, the babies' DNA is stored indefinitely according to the resource center. Many parents didn't knew that the baby's DNA was stored in a government lab. Some parents like the Brown take action when they found out that their baby's DNA was stored into a database. Parents in Texas and Minnesota have filed lawsuits and these parents' concerns are sparking a new debate. This debate deals with wheather it's appropriate for a baby's genetic blueprint should be in the government's possession. The Browns said that they are disgusted with the storage of their baby's DNA. One Brown is a registered nurse. The state of Minnesota's website said that samples are kept, so that tests can be repeated. If necessary, and in the case of the DNA is ever need to help parents identify a missing or deceased child. The samples are also used for medical research. Art Caplan is the famous bioethicist at the University of Pennslyvania. He said that he understands why states don't first ask permission to screen babies for genetic diseases. Caplan made the ludicrous assumption that the state getting the baby's DNA is very legitimate except when it's stored for a long period of time (with names stored). Genetic testing in America for newblorns begain in the 1960's. This came to study babies for diseases or conditions that could kill a child if undetected like mental retardation. Some feel that screening have helped the lives of countless newborns. .Over the years, many other tests were added to the list. Some states mandate that newborns be tested for anywhere between 28 and 54 different conditions. The DNA samples are stored in state labs for anywhere from 3 months to indefinitely. It depends on the state. To find out how long your baby's DNA is stored, see this state-by-state list). Brad Therrell, who runs the federally funded genetic resource consortium, says parents don't need to worry about the privacy of their babies' DNA. Some doctors and researchers don't need parental consent to get samples along as the baby's name is not attached according to Amy Gaviglio. She is one of the authors of the Minnesota report. It's simple to see that parents should give consent to screening. In some states, including Minnesota and Texas, the states are required to destroy a baby's DNA sample if a parent requests it. Parents who want their baby's DNA destroyed are asked to fill out this form in Minnesota and this form in Texas. Parents in other states have less recourse, says Therrell, who runs the genetic testing group. "You'd probably have to write a letter to the state saying, 'Please destroy my sample,'" he says. He adds, however, that it's not clear whether a state would necessarily obey your wishes. "I suspect it would be very difficult to get those states to destroy your baby's sample," he says.
Sarah Palin is officially a neo con. She delievered a speech in Republican Tea Party fest in Nasville, Tennesse during the weekend. She tocuhed on government spending, criticizing Barack Obama, and the banker bailout. Before that speech, Palin commented that the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmtullab should be grilled before he was read his Miranda right. She said before the Nashville speech that: "We need a commander in chief, not a professor of constitutional law." according to the Wichita Eagle. Barack Obama wasn't a professor of constitutional law. He was a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law school. There is a difference between the 2 titles in academia. Palin didn't get it right. Palin is now the darling of the Tea Party movement, which some neocons try to hijack. Palin believes in the heavy Republican point of view that the supposed terrorists accused by the government don't deserve Fifth Amendment protection and should be shuffled off to the torture camp at Gitmo as soon as possible. In other words, if the government proclaims someone as a terrorist, then they don't have a right to remain silent. If the governmetn says you're a terrorist, according to numerous neo cons, you're a terrorist until proven otherwise. Neocons don't like the Fifth Amendment in crucical cases, because the government is forced to have actionable intelligence to get terror suspects. In the case of Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab, he seems to be exploited. he was escorted to the airport in Amsterdam by a well dressed Indian man, who was obviously a military or intelligence operative. The neocons expect peopel to waterboard Abdulmuttallab to get information on sleeper cells and other nefarious plots in the making by Al-Qeda, which is a CIA created phantom group. Palin supports the war on terror against Muslims. She is just like Obama and the Democrats supporting the war on terror. In December, Tea Party Sarah lauded Obama’s decision to send another 30,000 troops into the Afghan meat grinder. “At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan,” Palin (or one of her handlers) wrote on her Facebook on December 1, 2009. “We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating Al-Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies,” she wrote. “We should be in Afghanistan to win.” Sarah Palin supports the status quo in the Middle East. She wants the expansion of settlements in the West Bank. People are leaving Israel in record numbers, because of fear that a war in on the horizon. Palin supports the Israeli bombing of civilinas in Gaza. She's a neo con and was educated by neo cons. She said that NATO may have to go to war with Russia and took a hardline on Iran's nuclear program, which was the result of 2 weeks of briefing by neoconservatives. Fighting Russia, Iran, etc. are obviously incorrect intensions to make manifest. Some in the Tea Party want to support spending billions of dollars to fund mass murder. Sarah Palin is a Trojan Horse. She wants to subvert the Tea Party movement in order to make them come into the Republican Party fold. Many folks paying 500 dolllars to attend the event ought to realize this truth. On CNN last night, one attendee to the fest in Nashville said the idea is to change the Republican party from the inside out and make it the party of the Constitution and individual liberty. Yet, others want the opposite to occur promoting the Left/Right paradigm.
Life news is here. Polls show that Americans favor Pro-Life Tim Tebow's superbowl ad by a 2-1 margin. CBS aired a Superbowl commercial. It was produced by the Focus on the Family that honors Tim Tebow and his family for their pro-life convictions. The ad have the support of the majority of Americans. The new Marist College poll finds strong support for the commercial in a 2-1 margin. The Super Bowl ad and a second one, which is a more revealing one will air 4 times during the pre-game coverage will focus on the story of Tim Tebow's birth. Pam Tebow suffered form dysentery and entered into a coma during her pregnancy with Tim. She refused a doctor's advice to get an abortion, because of the medication she was recieving. Tebow was born and he went on to take the Florida Gators to the national championship and win the Heisman Trophy. The poll surveyed 1,003 Americans and asked: "A pro-life, pro-family commercial sponsored by the advocacy group Focus on the Family will air during the Super Bowl. It features a Heisman Trophy winner, Florida Gators Quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother. Do you agree or disagree with the decision by CBS to air this commercial during the Super Bowl?" Some 60 percent of Americans agreed with CBS' decision to air the ad while just 30 percent said no and 10 percent were undecided. Republicans were more likely to say that they agreed with showing the pro-life ad (on a 71-21 percentage point clip), but Democrats (55-38 percent) and independents (58-31) were suportive as well. People who live in the South (63-30 percent), and Midwest (60-27 percent) were most supportive of the ad although residents of the northeast (59-30) and West, (57-33%) also supported the ad. The Marist College poll found men and women equally supportive of the Focus on the Family commercial with 61 percent of men agreeing with CBS to show the ad and 30 percent as saying no while women split 60 to 30 percent. Other polls prove the abortion itself, younger Americans display the most pro-life values. Those 18-29 supported the ad by a large 77-19 percentage point margin, and those 30-44 backed it 63-28 percent. Older Americans were less supportive with those 45-59 agreeing with CBS to show the spot on a 58-32 percent margin and people 60 or over agreeing on a 51-37 percent split. Lower income Americans are more likely to support the pro-life commerical. Those with college degrees with barely more supportive than their non-college peers. So, the Tebow ad is very meek and doesn't explicitly mention abortion at all. It's apart of the freedom of speech to show the ad.
Military hospitals ordered to carry the morning after pill. The Pentagon is silent on the conscience exemption for the abortion drug. This pill is called Plan B plus Next Coice. Its proponents claim that it can terminate a pregnancy shortly after sexual activity. Some believe it's a potential abortifacient. Defense officials have offered no assurance that the medical doctors will have the right of conscience in refusing to administer the drugs. Defense spokeswoman Cynthia Smith says that the Obama administration's decision follows the recommendation of the Department of Defense's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, which voted 13-2 in favor of the new policy in November. The morning after drugs have high doses of a hormone found in many typical birth control pills are intended to prevent pregancy when taken within 72 hours following unprotected sex. Nancy Keenan of the pro-abortion group Pro-Choice America supports the decision as emergency contraception. Some pro-life groups object to the pills, because they feel that if high level hormones prevent an laready an already fertilized egg from implanting in the woman's uterus, the pills effectively act as an early term, chemical abortion. "It can prevent the embryo from implanting and therefore destroy a human life," Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, told the Washington Post. "Women serving in the military deserve to know the truth about their medications. Because this can be the difference between preventing and destroying life, a requirement to carry this drug could violate the conscience rights of military personnel who have moral objections." WND contacted the Department of Defense to learn if there exist any provisions to protect military medical personnel's right of conscious in distributing the pills, but a public affairs officials admitted that he simply didn't know. "I haven't heard anything about that," said the official. "I'm not aware of anyone raising any objections to this." Kennan supports the Pentagon overturn of the Bush era policy of restricting abortive drugs. Others disagree with this policy. "The military needs to focus on its prime mission, yet leftists view it as a means to promote their agenda," Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America told LifeNews.com. "The morning-after pill is highly ineffective in preventing pregnancies and completely useless in preventing sexually transmitted diseases. But it's a political tool for abortion advocates." Wendy Wright said that the policy will make abortions more available at military hospitals. She said that this could make RU-486 pill mandatory. RU-486 is the abortion pill. Wright fears that doctors or pharmacists could be purged from their ranks if they raise objections to it. The new morning after pill called Ellaone is found by a recent study published online in the Lancet medical journal claims that it's effective in eliminating 50 percent of pregnancies up to five days after unprotected sex. Josephine Quintavalle is of the Pro-Life Alliance told London's Daily Mail that: "...If you take a morning-after pill within 24 hours, there is always the argument that the sperm may not have fertilized the egg by then, meaning pregnancy has not yet happened. "But if this pill works for five days there is no argument," she said. "This is not a contraceptive; it is an abortive agent." Wright told LifeNews.com, "Designating the morning-after pill as required to stock, and easy to obtain, may open the door for an abortion pill – which undisputedly kills an unborn child and can be extremely dangerous to the mother – to fit in that category."
By Timothy
No comments:
Post a Comment