OK, now go read that headline again. There is no trick to it. I am saying that government is aggregating unto itself the power to tell you, a parent of an 8-year-old child, which of his school classmates he is allowed to invite to his birthday party. And government has decided that if your child doesn’t invite every kid in his class, then he isn’t allowed to invite any of them.

It’s about discrimination, don’t you know?

You see, our wilting flowers, our fragile, unable, emotionally unstable children will grow up to become serial killers if they don’t get invited to YOUR child’s birthday party. The government cares, see, and has so decreed. YOU will just have to invite everyone or you will be barred from having that party.

Fortunately this stupidity hasn’t yet happened in the United States but it did just occur in Europe. Sweden to be exact. The AP is reporting the Nanny State in Sweden has forcibly taken away the birthday invitations to an 8-year-old boy’s birthday party and told his father that he isn’t allowed to pass them out to only some of the other kids. If it isn’t all of them, then NONE should be invited.

The boy handed out invitations to classmates at his school in Lund, southern Sweden, but did not invite two boys because they were not his friends… The school, 360 miles south of Stockholm, confiscated all the invitations, saying it objected because it had a duty to ensure against discrimination.

The Father of the boy told authorities that one of the two boys had bullied his child and the other had not invited his boy to a past party.

Now, the anti-American left in this country would have you believe that Europe is the closest thing to nirvana, they say we should be emulating what they do there. We’ve even had self-hating Supreme Court Justices imagining that we should jettison the Constitution and take up foreign precedent as our own.

Big Brother and his nanny state rules all, even your 8-year-old’s birthday party.

Don’t laugh this off as something that could not happen here. Total domination of government over our lives is the ultimate end of modern liberalism. From the most important decisions to the least, most personal decisions, government must take all power unto itself to fulfill the liberal mantras of “fairness,” and “non-discrimination.”

It is already happening in Europe. It will come here if the Democratic Party and their malcontent, meddlesome constituency have anything to say about it. It’s just the kind of “change” just the kind of “new tone” they want. In fact, even if that isn’t their ultimate plan, it IS the ultimate destination, regardless.

Protectors of the innocent unborn need to prepare for the impending assault on the right to life, this time waged under the banner of stopping “domestic violence.” 

Actually, the first volley has already been fired. Democratic senator Barack Obama recently announced his support of the proposed International Violence Against Women Act, a bill the Family Violence Prevention Fund admits is designed to solidify “women’s access to reproductive health service.”  

Mr. Obama is not the first to cloak the reproductive rights agenda in the domestic violence crusade. For years the rad-fems have been working behind the scenes, laying the groundwork for another frontal attack on the culture of life. 

At the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the Ladies of the Left penned a manifesto called “Reproductive Health Services and Intimate Partner Violence.” This document sheds crocodile tears over the fact that “violence and reproductive health often remain distinct, despite the framing of both issues as essential components of women’s human rights.” 

Abortionists often wave the bloody flag that abortion must be legalized or else women will die. Of course they never mention that effective medical treatments are available to save an imperiled woman’s life.  

But the public is beginning to see through the subterfuge. So the pro-abortionists have devised a new argument that goes something like this: We have an epidemic of men who abuse their wives and force themselves on their girlfriends. Ergo, the solution is to grant women the right to abort. 

Let’s say it politely: Shame on these people for telling such lies.  

Professor Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire is the world’s leading researcher on family violence. Earlier this year Dr. Straus published the results of his 32-nation survey of dating couples. This is what he found: 

1. Fewer than 11% of couples had engaged in any incident of serious partner aggression in the past year, proving that physical violence between partners is fairly uncommon. 

2. Two-thirds of the time the violence was mutual – she slapped him, he shoved her. One of those tit-for-tat affairs. 

3. And here’s the shocker: Women were twice as likely to initiate unilateral violence as men. That’s right, the stories about Amy Winehouse using her husband as a “punch-bag” and Hillary Clinton carving up Bill’s jaw turn out to represent a much broader problem. 

So why don’t we hear about female violence more often? Well, several reasons. 

Abused men are far less likely to call for help (Can you imagine Bill calling down to the state troopers to pull Hillary off his back?). Police may arrest the man, even if he’s the one with the scratches and bruises. Prosecutors scoff at the mention of men injured by their partners. And editors marinated in feminist ideology will do anything to keep the story off the front page.  

That bias allows lawmakers to get away with laws bearing one-sided names like the Violence Against Women Act. And it keeps people in a perpetual hysteria over the faux epidemic of wife-battering. 

This high-stakes struggle is taking place around the world. One of the main mischief-makers is the UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund. Their website calls for ending violence against women which they allege is “widespread.” (Remember, keeping people in a frenzy of fear is how they lock in their funding.) 

Their solution to partner abuse? You guessed it: “UNFPA advocates for legislative reform and enforcement of laws for the promotion and the protection of women’s rights to reproductive health choices.”  

Amnesty International is another purveyor of the counterfeit claims. In Europe, AI voted to “support the decriminalization of abortion…and to defend women’s access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger.” In response, bishops instructed Catholic schools in England and Wales to boycott Amnesty. 

In Nicaragua, pro-abortion forces dropped their rhetoric about “reproductive rights” in favor of pushing an agenda of “stopping violence against women.” 

Sex-selective abortion, which has snuffed out the lives of 100 million baby girls in China and India, is another battlefront. This moral and demographic travesty exposes the hypocrisy of abortionists who claim they are only trying to help disadvantaged women.  

The most obvious cure, and probably the only solution to sex-selective abortions is an outright ban on all abortions — but the baby-killing industry wouldn’t be happy with that. 

So they paper over the truth with Orwellian doublespeak about “pre-birth sex selection,” as if we’re flipping some kind of genetic switch. And of course Sen. Obama’s so-called International Violence Against Women Act doesn’t even hint at this modern-day holocaust.  

Is anyone pretending to be surprised? 

 by Jim Kouri

Last week, 96 street gang members and associates were arrested as a result of a state-wide public safety initiative in New Jersey, according to a report obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

Each of those arrested were targeted for their membership, participation or association with violent street gangs operating in the Garden State.

The success of the operation dubbed “Community Shield” was the result of an extensive collaborative effort between federal Gang Investigation Unit special agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and multiple law enforcement agencies throughout the state including the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, West New York Police Department, Newark Police Department, New Brunswick Police Department, Passaic Police Department, Union City Police Department, Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office.

Of those arrested, 76 were gang members and 20 were gang associates. A total of 76 individuals arrested are members of the MS-13, La Mugre, LA-13, DDP, Trinitarios, Mexican Mafia, Los Pitufos, Vatos Locos, Bloods and Crips street gangs.

The majority of those arrested were from El Salvador, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic. Three cases will be presented for federal prosecution, seven individuals were arrested on state charges and 30 were unlawfully present in the United States. Three weapons were seized, including a 9mm firearm from a convicted felon, along with gang paraphernalia.

Among those arrested were: David Vargas, 27, a member of the Latin Kings street gang, arrested on federal charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine; and Delwall Herrera-Guevara, 26, a member of the notorious MS-13, charged under New Jersey law for possession of cocaine.

Also nabbed were Jeffrey Diaz, 20, a member of the Dominican’s Don’t Play (DDP) street gang, charged under New Jersey law for aggravated assault and attempted murder; and
Alberto Vargas, 28, a member of the Mexican Mafia gang, arrested on federal charges of being an aggravated felon who re-entered the United States after being deported.

“The Union City Police Department is very happy with our long-term, ongoing working relationship with [federal and state law enforcement agencies] which has resulted in the apprehension and removal of many criminal street gang members who are in our community illegally,” said Captain Brian Barrett, Investigative Division Commander.

“Law enforcement achieves the best results when law enforcement agencies work together for the safety of the public,” said Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
   

Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe has done it again. Now, usually Z is one of those columnists that is sure every white American is a racist and many of his columns are based on that assumption, but it looks like he is branching out from his normal black/white identity politics angle and adding a new twist to his column. You see, Z has just discovered that whites don’t hate only blacks, they hate Muslims too. How inclusive, eh?

Even more ridiculously, Z imagines that white Muslim haters in “red states” are forcing Barack Obama to distance himself from his Muslim background. In fact, according to Z, Islam is the victim of white America’s newest “red scare” and Obama is feeling the heat because of that undue hatred. It all means we are “Holding Muslims at arm’s length” to Derrick Z. Jackson.

I wonder where Z was on 9/11?

Anyway, Z’s latest Globe column lays into Barack Hussein Obama (yes, Z uses Obama’s middle name here) chastising the candidate of change for turning his back on his Muslim heritage. Z is upset that Obama has pushed away Muslim assistance with his campaign and is incensed that Barack has taken pains to refute the Barack-is-a-Muslim line of attack.

I WISH Barack Obama were a Muslim. Better that than having supercilious staffers whisk women in Islamic head scarves out of photo-ops. Better that than telling Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the nation’s first Muslim congressman, not to come help Obama in Iowa and North Carolina.

Better that than wooing red states by wobbling before the modern equivalent of the Red Scare. In his year-and-a-half-long run for president, Obama has visited churches and synagogues, but no mosque. This has the musty feel of light-skinned African-Americans passing for white, paranoid over daylight visits from dark-skinned relatives.

“Red Scare”? Again, where was Z on 9/11? Did he miss that little fracas in New York? What “scare” is there in a world-wide attack on the west by radical Islam? Hundreds of thousands of people around the world have been murdered by Islamists, Z. How is that just a “scare”?

And, need we remind you Mr. Jackson, that the “Red Scare” itself was no mere pointless jeremaid? Once the Soviet Union fell and its archives came into public scrutiny, it was proven that the Commies had, indeed, infiltrated all levels of the Federal government and had intended to upend our country through sabotage in high places. Presidents from FDR to JFK were surrounded by Soviet agents, so continuing to pretend that the “Red Scare” was merely an artifice for wild-eyed American fascist, rightists to control the country is an idea long shown to be but leftist trope. It was not just paranoia. The Reds really were out to destroy us from within.

Z does cut Barack Hussein Obama some slack. He says it’s “understandable” that Obama feels a bit wary about Islam because “Political woodpeckers hammer falsehoods from the right.” But, Jackson still feels that Obama is somehow going too far in his desire set his religious record straight.

…Obama’s “Fight the Smears” part of his website has some Muslims feeling betrayed by an over-the-top effort to denounce every Obama-is-a-Muslim claim as a “lie” and saying, “Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.” How about something like, “Senator Obama is a Christian who, having lived in the world’s largest Muslim country [Indonesia], having traveled in Pakistan and having many Muslim friends, appreciates American pluralism like no other candidate in US history”?

What, exactly, is wrong with a candidate trying to make clear where he stands on something? In fact, this is the ONLY issue that Obama has not nuanced his way through to date. This is the only issue that Obama has stood firm on. The man does not want to be considered a Muslim. PERIOD!

Of course, it doesn’t seem to matter to Derrick Z. Jackson that there is not one shred of evidence that Obama ever really embraced his Father’s religion. I have to stick up for Barack on this one. All evidence says that he was an indifferent student of Islam as a child and once he turned away from Islam he never really looked back, embracing Christianity instead. Now, one can doubt Obama’s sincerity on any religion, of course. It is easy to imagine that Obama only turned to Christianity to help along his political ambitions… but who can truly say what’s in a man’s heart?

The facts, the evidence, the history, though, say that Barack Obama never seriously considered accepting Islam into his life. So, for columnists like Z to get all upset that Obama has insisted that people understand where he stands on religion is a bit contrived to say the least.

But, Jackson’s real message here is not Obama. He may be a bit miffed at him, yes, but Jackson’s main point is that we eeeevil Americans are too mean to Muslims.

A lot of Muslims are waiting because, seven years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, an undercurrent of suspicion remains. In the 2007 Pew survey, a third of Muslim Americans said that within the last year, they had either been treated with suspicion, called offensive names, profiled by police, or even attacked. Kaleem, a graduate of MIT, said he sometimes is asked during grant proposals how radical his group is.

Actually, this part is sort of humorous in the sense of Jackson’s lack of introspection. He says that we should get over 9/11 because it was 7 year ago? I see. Well, civil rights was passed 44 years ago and slavery was ended over 140 years ago, yet Mr. Jackson is still all upset over those little things. Can’t you just get over it, Mr. Jackson?

Now, it might help us to get over it and to feel that American Muslims belong standing beside the rest of us if Muslims in America would speak out loudly and continuously against their radical brethren. But all too often they remain silent against the radicalism of their own as they point fingers at Americans. It’s a bit hard for us to get over it when it doesn’t seem like too many of them even feel that their fellows did anything wrong that fateful day.

In any case, what we have here is just one more excuse for Derrick Z. Jackson to inform us all that white Americans are racists.

(Photo credit: Boston.com)

The New York Times, of all places ran a headline a while ago – “THE COUNTRY SAFE AT LAST.; FINAL ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS”; I think the grey lady unwittingly expressed the sentiments of all conservatives.

Congress in session, whether dominated by Democrats or Republicans (as now constituted), are unable to restrain themselves. Whether they engage in outrageous spending or excessive regulation, the result is the same; freedom and our country suffer.

The latest fiasco we have escaped from (but probably only temporarily) has to do with congress’ intention to indirectly reduce healthcare for millions of Americans, especially those depending on Medicare for survival. In this case it’s not clear if congress alone is the culprit or whether they have help from the Bush administration.

The problem I am referring to is the plan to further reduce payments to doctors for services rendered to Medicare patients. Because congress left town, a reprieve was given to thousands of doctors expecting to get hit with a 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments. The Department of Health and Human Services will essentially freeze the current pricing system because of the absence of congress for a midsummer break without approving a price change, according to Secretary Mike Leavitt. Congressional aides said the freeze could last 10 days so there is time for those on Medicare to complain to their Senators and congressmen and women but it must be done right away. Leave plenty of messages for them about this when they return.

The Department is already paying doctors less for services but the Department says that if the legislation is delayed further, retroactive payments to doctors will be made.

In the last session of the senate, Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning led a delay by calling for action delayed by the senate while waiting for Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to return to the chambers. Senator Robert Byrd already distinguished for senile performances, shouted in anger at the delay “Who are you?” and mockingly called Bunning a “great baseball man.”

The payment cuts to doctors are part of a 1997 balanced budget deal during the Clinton administration that trims the money going to Medicare.

The only source of opposition has been the American Medical Association, and AARP; they have argued that reduced payments would prompt many doctors to drop out of the Medicare system. Even private insurance companies make a similar argument for Medicare Advantage plans which are a form of private fee-for-service plans. These programs, and HMOs, have been also targeted in the Democrats’ bill.

Democrats’ general argument is that reductions in spending in some programs are needed to “pay for” others; in this case they seek reduced funding for Medicare as their means of “paying” for largesse they want to give to others. The legislation could result in $14 billion less for insurers over five years, though an estimate by a House Republican caucus put the reduction at $47.5 billion over 11 years. All this would come from income to doctors.

Democrats are childishly gleeful at their prospects; it has been reported that “At one point during Thursday’s debate, Reid literally hopped around the chamber, predicting Democrats would hold “at least” 59 Senate seats next year because Republicans toed Bush’s line.”

“I don’t know how many people are up here for reelection, but I am watching a few of them pretty closely,” Reid said, staring at the GOP side of the chamber. “I say to all those people who are up for reelection: If you think you can go home and say, ‘I voted no because this weak president, the weakest political standing since they have done polling, I voted because I was afraid to override his veto’ — come on.”

Some Republicans have tried to forestall cuts in Medicare payments but sentiment for reduced payments to doctors is so strong on the part of Democrats that it is likely all that can be done is to delay the cuts, especially since the House passed the bill by a veto-proof margin. However, after the senate reconvenes July 7 it will have only three days to pass a fix before the HHS freeze on payments to doctors is lifted; so to preserve your ability to continue to use doctors you have now, it is imperative to contact your senators now.

Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His articles may be read at www.vincentgioia.com and he may be contacted at gioia@gte.net.