POTENTIALLY; DANGEROUS, IDIOTS!

Study: Teaching Abstinence Works Better Than Sex ED…

After years of being made fun of and maligned by the left and lefty sympathizer comics, the proof has now come out of the pudding. I wonder what they got to say now?

And lets not forget that rising political starlet -Palin- is a staunch supporter of teaching abstinence and was blasted by all forms of the lefty commie pinko party. Who has the last laugh now! And lets not forget how Obama made off the cuff comments about Palins stance… “You are living in the dark-ages if you believe that teaching just abstinence alone… it just won’t work”. I’m sure he -Obama- will come up with a pithy response as… I can’t find any credible health service people that say that your information is true… as he did when taking on the G.O.P. in Baltimore last week.

Yeah, hey OBAMA… I can’t find any credible Americans that think your Ideas will work…

Nonetheless work, but in fact they say your Ideas will destroy America!

Bill Kristol Going Viral… Obama’s Doing All Kinds of Crazy Stuff That Risks Destroying America.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the story…

(Feb. 2) — What if abstinence-only programs actually work?

That’s the question facing educators this week after a groundbreaking study found that students who take classes emphasizing abstinence are less likely to have sex than those who take classes teaching safe sex.

Although the effectiveness and virtues of sex-ed versus abstinence-only curricula have long been the subject of fierce debate in American schools, the federal study, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, is the first of its kind to suggest that programs encouraging students to abstain from having sex altogether are successful.

Just under half of the students in the study who received sex-education classes that included information about contraceptives went on to have sex in the next two years. But only one out of three students in the study who received abstinence-only education did.

Researchers say the long-term study, which followed 662 African-American public middle school students between 2001 and 2004, is significant. John Jemmott, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who headed the study, told The Washington Post, “I think we’ve written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence. Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used.”

Valerie Huber, the director of the National Abstinence Education Association, said in a phone interview Tuesday that the study should be “a policy-changing article.”

Huber said she hopes President Obama and Congress will make a “course correction” on funding for abstinence-only programs. “The study shows abstinence really is much more than a ’say no’ message,” she said. “There needs to be a very targeted and specific abstinence approach that is funded separately from so-called comprehensive or safe sex funding.”

The study, interestingly enough, comes at a time when teen pregnancy rates are up for the first time in a decade, and many liberal and abortion rights groups say the eight years of increased funding for abstinence-only programs during the Bush administration are to blame. President Barack Obama has pledged $114 million to address teen pregnancy but cut $170 million in funding for abstinence-only education last year after scores of studies showed such programs to be ineffective. Melody Barnes, the White House’s domestic policy adviser, told USA Today that the decision to make the cuts simply “reflects the research.”

But not everyone thinks it’s fair to blame President George W. Bush and abstinence-only education for the increase in teen pregnancy. At Newsweek, Sarah Kliff points out that abstinence-only funding rose during the Clinton years as well, when the teen pregnancy rate actually dropped by 3 percent. “Particularly between 1997 and 1998, when the funding of abstinence-only education increased tenfold, there should have been some indication of an uptick,” Kliff writes. “But there wasn’t.”

It’s not yet clear whether these latest findings will change the way sex education is taught in the country’s schools.

In Catholic schools at least, little will change. Joe Kohn of the Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit said the latest study simply reaffirms the abstinence-only curriculum found in Catholic schools. “One thing I can say is, when it’s practiced, the policy of abstinence is effective 100 percent of the time,” he said. He added that the Detroit archdiocese does teach about “various contraceptives and contraceptive methods” but “does not encourage them.”

But the abstinence-only program in the study was not religious, as many similar programs are, and did not vilify condom use. James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, which promotes comprehensive sex-ed programs, said that was an important distinction that separates the program in the study from those advocated during the Bush years.

“The bottom line is, we’re just coming out of a $1.5 billion investment in really, really bad abstinence-only programs,” Wagoner said Tuesday in a phone interview. He said the abstinence program in the study did not include “misinformation” about sex or contraceptives, for example.

What is clear is that experts and groups that had once thought abstinence-only education to be a fool’s errand are taking a second look. Abstinence-only programs may be more useful than researchers originally thought. Sarah Brown, head of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, told The Washington Post that the study was “game-changing.”

Even Wagoner, who charges that studies by conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation advocating abstinence-only programs are akin to having “Santa Claus write something from the North Pole,” found the federal study compelling. “This is a legitimate study from a legitimate researcher,” he said. “So those of us who believe in legitimate research have to pay attention.”

Wagoner still wants comprehensive sexual education in the country’s schools, however. He notes that 23 percent of students in the study were already sexually active before the abstinence-only program even began. “Don’t you want to make sure they have the education to protect themselves?” he asked.

We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws but of Rules and the Back Dooring of these Rules.

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

DEMINT: But, Mr. President, as the chair has confirmed, Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate. It is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the Reid substitute. . . . These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth.”

The Senate President disagreed and said it was a change in procedure, not a change in rules, therefore the Senate precedent that a two-thirds vote is required to change the rules of the Senate does not apply.

Senator DeMint responded:

DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

DEMINT: then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow.

That’s right. When confronted with the facts, the Senate Democrats ran for cover. The Senate Democrats are ignoring the constitution, the law, and their own rules to pass Obamacare.

To quote the Declaration of Indepedence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

This is what we have become! Are you not proud…

Obama is negotiating surrender in Afghanistan

COINCIDENTS OF REPORTS ARGUE THAT THIS IS FACT, NOT FICTION
by John Charlton

(Nov. 23, 2009) — Obama is about to sell out for political expediency the brave troops of the American and Nato forces which have been fighting a bitter war in the mountains of Afghanistan for nearly 8 years.

The report comes from an Arabic News Agency, Al-Watan, in Saudia Arabia. Chaptomatic’s translation of the report reads as follows:

Kabul, Islamabad: (agency name)

A well-informed Afghani source confirmed details of secret discussions happening between (name?) of the Taliban movement, among them the designated minister of war, and the American ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. (and there was agreement). The same source [said there was] complete agreement before the American ambassador party request and it resulted in US conditions for proceeding.

Ambassador Eikenberry proposed that the movement be granted sovereign power / authority in Kandahar state and Helmand and Orzkan and Kanr and Nuristan, in exchange for the ending of attacks on American bases in Afghanistan.

The Islamic Media blog, Membri Blog identifies the minister of war as Ahmad Mutawakil, the Taliban foreign minister — evidently they are the same position.

This report is unconfirmed by direct sources, but a report by the Christian Science Monitor yesterday indicates that the Pakistani government was asked by the Obama regime to sound out in support of Obama’s planned betrayal of the American and Afghan people.

Najmuddin Shaikh, formerly the top bureaucrat in the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, said the Taliban could be brought to the negotiating table if they saw a greater American military commitment and more investments in the Afghan countryside.

“It’s a little premature for talks [with the Taliban],” Shaikh said. “There has to be a change in the ground situation, things happening in the next six to eight months that shows the ‘ink spots’ strategy – [McChrystal’s idea of protecting Afghan population centers] – is taking hold, that some foot soldiers are being weaned away, then talks become possible.”

Nevertheless, behind the scenes talks with mid-level Taliban officials already have begun, and Pakistani officials think they could rapidly accelerate now that Karzai has begun his second term.

“We’ve already been talking to them [the Taliban],” said a senior Pakistani official in Islamabad, who couldn’t be named because of the sensitivity of the issue. “If the US helps the process, some arrangements can be worked out for political reconciliation. I’m not for a moment suggesting that it’s an easy task, but otherwise you will be fighting these people for the next hundred years.”

ThreatsWatch.org has issued its own enlightening commentary with many informative links on this possibility that Obama is negotiating surrender:

It would also fit in consistently with Ambassador Eikenberry’s leaked cables recently railing against a ’surge’ in forces in Afghanistan. He wouldn’t voice such without thinking he has his hands on something else. Could this be it? The surrender of 25% of Afghan territory in exchange for some form of ceasefire?

One would hope not. But if so, this demonstrated type of ‘effort’ in Afghanistan would prove to be the strongest indication that it may be time to advocate the full pullout of American forces from Afghanistan.

If this is true, then not one more drop of American blood for a path that resembles Pakistan’s path. You recall Pakistan’s series of surrenders touted as agreements, right?

Commentators on the net are indicating that if this news of negotiations between Eikenberry and Mutawakil is true, there will be immediate demands from the opposition parties in the United Kingdom, Canada and other Nato Allies for withdrawal, on the grounds that such a course of action is a slap in the face to America’s allied who have spent the blood of their own nationals for years, supporting American action in Afghanistan. The doubt alone, that this is true, will greatly weaking the alliance.