On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed
Executive Order 9066. The order called for the internment of anyone of
Japanese descent, who was living on the west coast, of the United
States, to camps elsewhere in the US. These camps were setup to prevent
any possible Japanese spying, by these people.
Many of them, had never seen Japan, and
had been born in the States. A lot of the children did not even speak
any Japanese. Their citizenship meant nothing to the government, which
used public fears over invasion as an excuse for the relocations.
Forced
from their homes, many times without even being allowed to take anything
but a suitcase of clothes for an entire family. By the time the war was
over, those who went back to their homes found that their houses and
business had been sold out from under them, without a cent being given
to them for it.
When
given the chance, many of the men of age and health joined the Army, in
units such as the 442 Regiment. These Japanese American fought in the European theater, and were highly decorated.
Order 9066 and it's aftermath are one of the darkest days in
American history. But from out of it came the greatness of those who had
even greater obstacles to overcome, to be American. They shouldn't have had to earn it, but they did and wore it proudly.
The dead are continuing to pile up in Syria, as once again security forces targeted funerals by opening fire on them. Most of the country faces massacre any time they come out in groups, except during prayers. Yet, the protests continue even as tanks appear in more and more of the Syrian cities.
Armed resistance is growing, as some troops defect when ordered to shoot into unarmed crowds. But this is very far from a civil war. It is simply just too one sided of a conflict. Nor is it contained within Syria's borders. Last Sunday saw the violence spread to Syrian gangs in Lebanon.
Most of the world has enacted sanctions upon the government for it's violent ways. But the United Nations have been unable to pass international ones, due to vetoes from Russia and China. Last week the Arab League called for a joint mission with UN peacekeepers, to enforce peace in Syria. Russia was quick to pledge a veto of that as well.
Officials, in the United States defense department, have confirmed that it is flying drones over Syria, in hopes that the images they capture will put greater pressure on the world, to join them in pressuring President Bashar al-Assad to step down.
Estimates of the death toll in the conflict, which started last year, range from Syrian government reports of just over a thousand to the UN's estimate of 5,000. Syrian activists say near 8,500. As the activists only really count their dead, and the government mostly counts only it's own as well, the actual number could very well be over 10,000.
Iranian warships have once again entered the Mediterranean Sea, and gone on to dock in Tartous, Syria, where Russia has sent ships, as well. Last February, was the first time since the Islamic Revolution, in 1979, that Iran's navy has done so. The move has been stated by Iranian state TV to be of "extreme worry for zionist forces", yet at the same time stating the ships are on a “message of peace".
Israel was quick to declare it a "provocative act", and denounce it as a "power play" by Iran. The Israeli government also warned Iran to keep the ships away for their coast, or the ships would be considered hostile.
Iran accompanied the move by announcing that they are cutting off oil exports to the United Kingdom and France. Though what they think this will accomplish remains to be seen, as both countries had led the European Union to enact sanctions against Iran. The power of the sanctions has been being felt throughout Iran. The United States, China, and the majority of the world have been involved in the sanctions as well. Only Russia's vetoes have kept the United Nations from joining in.
On February 17, 2012, a Muslim extremist was arrested attempting to bomb the U.S. Capitol. It wasn't your typical white, anti-contraception, Christian-Conservative male that we are used to seeing attempt a suicide mission on a U.S. landmark or military base. Fox News Reports:
Authorities arrested and charged Friday a Virginia man allegedly on his way to the U.S. Capitol for what he thought would be a suicide attack on one of the nation's most symbolic landmarks
The federal criminal complaint against the suspect identifies him as Amine El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan citizen who has been living in the United States illegally since 1999 after his visa expired. He was nabbed following a lengthy investigation by the FBI, initiated after he allegedly expressed interest in conducting an attack. Court documents say he came onto the radar screen in early December after he told an undercover agent about an earlier plan to bomb a northern Virginia building.
I suppose It's not all that surprising that a Muslim, here illegally, would attempt to harm Americans. It seems every few months there is some sort of thwarted attempt to attack the U.S. by a person or persons that have a connection with the peace-loving religion of Islam. I mean, if über-Conservative Mitt Romney says they're peace-loving, they must be. Right?
What was surprising however, was the post I came across this morning from the disgraceful, Trig Palin obsessed website called Wonkette. You haven't heard of them? No worries, they probably have fewer readers than Keith Olbermann has viewers on that TV channel your remote probably doesn't go up to.
In a super-neato sting operation today, the FBI totally intercepted a Muslim Terrorist wearing a suicide bomb vest en route to the Capitol, to blow it up.
You can almost sense his contempt for the FBI in his first five words of the piece. But wait... mom hasn't disconnected his modem yet...
Sucker! Caught you! Go eat an Abortionplex-sized bag of dicks, guy! (But really, thank you for taking all of the pretend bombs our agents gave you and going with them on field trips to test explosives and all the other things we tricked you into doing so we could arrest you.)
The FBI is masterful when it comes to thwarting their own baroque terrorist plots in dramatic fashion at the very last minute, just as their scripts instruct them to do. The Feds foundtoday’s lucky arrestee, a 29-year-old Moroccan, about a year ago and thought, Sure, this one looks Muslim enough to me, he’ll do… now let’s start brainstorming a plot and getting him all the fake bombs and training and support he needs so we can arrest him in a year.
So, an illegal alien who also happens to be a peace-loving Muslim was interested in bombing a Virginia building. The FBI, when obtaining this information, pursued him through legal actions and thwarted the attack on the Capitol, preventing the potential loss of lives by not allowing him access to "real" bombs.
Jim continues his groundbreaking analysis and journalism only the Onion could make look good;
...All in all, another magnificent production — four stars. Will this be the year that the FBI *finally* wins that Best Director statuette it’s coveted for so long? Ugh, let’s not get into studio politics…
Uh oh! Is the fake terrorist scaring you, teevee flaphead?
Children are so impressionable.
I guess its not enough for Jim, or Wonkette for that matter (just a reminder of the website name in case you had his occupation confused with that of little orange men stirring chocolate and singing childhood nursery rhymes) that the FBI prevented a terrorist from taking peoples lives.
I'm not sure if Mr. Newell would've been content with the sting had the FBI provided Amine El Khalifi with actual explosives, or if lives had been lost. I do know, however, that that this attitude displayed by the extreme Left is destructive to our country and It's security.
Also, Mr. Newell, you do know that law enforcement portrays themselves as minors when nabbing sexual pedophiles? Right? I suppose that you believe law enforcement "tricked them into doing that so we could arrest them"
During the Trilateral Talks between, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran; Asif Ali Zardari, leader of Pakistan, pledged to support Iran if it was attacked. This marks the second country to announce such a move. A month ago, to the day, Russia announced that any attack on Iran would be considered an attack on Moscow.
An attack on Iran is expected from Israel, and possibly the United States and the European Union as well, if Iran does not cease their nuclear program. Iran claims the program is for energy purposes, but then brags about refining uranium well beyond what is needed for energy, closing ever more so upon weapons grade. Which is exactly what Israel, the US and EU have accused Iran of, seeking nuclear weapons.
So far sanctions, have been unable to convince Iran to stop, despite the fact that the effects of them are being severely felt. Even China has joined the majority of the world on placing them against the belligerent nation. Russia, however, has vetoed every proposal by the United Nations to place international sanctions on Iran.
Tensions have remained high due to Iran's continued threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. Assassinations of Iranian scientists, have not helped the matter either. Just this week attacks on Israeli embassy staff members, and the capture of Iranian bomb makers in Thailand, added even more fuel to the fateful heading.
This also marks further trouble between the US and Pakistan. Formerly allies in the war against the Taliban, Pakistan is at the conference partially to make a separate peace. The alliance has been falling apart lately as the government and military of Pakistan keep finding themselves at odds, yet the US stayed out of it when the President asked for help after Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan. China however, has been offering at least an ear to Zardari's troubles.
Hall of fame catcher Gary Carter succumbed to brain cancer Thursday afternoon, at the age of 57. Remembered for his non stop love of the game, he played nineteen years for four teams. The New York Mets, Montreal Expos, San Francisco Giants and Los Angeles Dodgers all were lucky enough to have them on their teams during his career. He helped the Mets to a World Series win, and the Expos to their only playoff berth ever.
An 11-time All Star, he finished his career with a .262 average, 324 home runs and 1,225 RBIs. Twice he took home MVP for the All Star game, and is the only player to have a two-homer performance in both an All-Star Game and a World Series game. He also holds the record for most games caught in the NL.
"He is in heaven and has reunited with his mom and dad. I believe with
all my heart that dad had a STANDING OVATION as he walked through the
gates of heaven to be with Jesus," Carter's daughter, Kimmy Bloemers, wrote on the family website.
Civvers have been rejoicing as Thursday, 2KGames announced the first real expansion of Civilization V. Gods and Kings adds "27 new units, 13 new buildings, 9 new wonders, and 9 new playable
civilizations. Among the new civilizations are the Netherlands (William
I, Prince of Orange), the Celts (Boudicca), and the Mayans (Pacal the
Great)."
It will also host a brand new combat system, where the AI should be even more intelligent. It's armies should be more balanced, forcing human players to think more. Also look for melee naval units.
Favourites from Civ 4, are returning as well, though reworked to show they belong in 5. Religions are indeed back, though this time they are customizable, to a degree. Espionage has returned as well, with spies being able to do the usual things, as well as having abilities never before seen in any Civ, including ranks of their own.
With the addition of religion, of course they had to add religious city states. Mercantile city states are also being introduced. The inclusion of espionage will have effects on relations with city states, and the quest system has been vastly expanded, which also helpfully reduces the amount of gold needed to spend on them.
Lastly mentioned, but surely not the last bit of the expansion, there are three new scenarios that come with it. You can now play "the fall of Rome, explore the medieval era, and a unique scenario in a Victorian science-fiction setting."
Exciting news that will surely lead to even more One More Turn Syndrome issues for games lucky enough to be known as civvers.
Just a couple of weeks ago in Raeford, North Carolina, a school confiscated a preschool girls lunch because they felt it was "not nutritious", replacing her homemade turkey sandwich with chicken meat nuggets. h/t @BBUHM at TORARADICAL.com
UPDATE: A second mother, Diane Zambrano, says her 4-year-old daughter, Jazlyn, in the same West Hoke Elementary School class as the little girl whose lunch gained national attention earlier this week, had her lunch of a cheese and salami sandwich on wheat replaced last month with nuggets, sweet potato, bread, and milk. via The Blaze, 2/17/12
UPDATE 3/7/12: The teacher who replaced the child's lunch, Ms. Maynor, has beensuspendedindefinitely. However, the policy that required Ms. Maynor to seize the girls lunch has not been changed.
Last week, in Lansing, Michigan, during a legislative hearing at the state capitol, Debbie Squires, the associate director of the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association, explained to the House Education Committee why her association opposed allowing more online schools. “Educators go through education for a reason,” Squires said. “They are the people who know best about how to serve children. That’s not necessarily true of an individual resident. I’m not saying they don’t want the best for their children, but they may not know what actually is best from an education standpoint.”
As the Education Action Group at Big Government rightfully points out, Squires’ comments are noteworthy because they give parents and citizens a window into the minds of the nation’s self-proclaimed education experts. Despite their talk of “collaborating” with parents to reform public education, the establishment honestly believes that parents are too ignorant and ill-informed to choose the best learning option for their child. Not only that, but they believe charter schools and cyber schools are consuming tax dollars that rightfully belong to the government-run public schools. They argue that the only thing preventing traditional public schools from producing amazing student results is a lack of money.
The Education Action Group also points out, that despite an 82.5% increase per pupil, the U.S. Department of Education has been on a consistent academic decline. The facts suggest otherwise. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Services, per pupil spending increased by 82.5 percent – in constant dollars – from the 1980-81 school year to the 2008-09 school year. What did taxpayers get in return for their increased investment? From 1980 to 2010, Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) scores in critical reading dropped one point (from 502 to 501), while the average math SAT score increased a meager 24 points (492 to 516). (A score of 500 is considered to be average.)
The Left in our country, from the top down, continue to drain our freedoms in the name of 'compassion'. They believe that we the people aren't capable of making the best decisions for our lives, and whether their policies or government forced legislation causes harm or takes away our individual liberties, as long as the good intentions are there... well, that's all that matters.
As Bob Beckel, liberal contributor to Fox News' The Five, said on January 18th 2012; “We liberals made a terrible mistake going back 30 years ago. We made a dependent society because we thought we were doing the right thing. We had things like public housing and we had welfare payments and all that bred dependency, and it was our responsibility, we did it for the right reasons, we need to change that. But the way you change it is not to say that it’s an opportunity society alone that’s gonna do it. It’s gonna require some government intervention. That’s our point.”
Right. Government caused the problem, so let's just trust the government to solve it.
Read the studies, look at the facts, keep an open mind, do not base your opinion on your beliefs about abortion and determine for yourself: Is there a link between abortions and breast cancer? What is your opinion? All comments welcome. Also, if anyone has links to other, independent studies, I'd be interested in seeing them.
The recent events of the Susan G. Koman Foundation pulling and then renewing support for Planned Parenthood has brought up, once again, the issue of “does Abortion increase the risk of breast cancer?”
As a nurse, I was interested to know the facts. It seems that there are a lot of studies out there with differing viewpoints. Both sides use the studies that support their views as “proof” one way or the other. The interpretation of the studies has been so politicized, that it is difficult to determine if there is a connection or not.
This topic is coming up again because of the Koman Foundation’s monetary support of Planned Parenthood. If there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer how could the Koman Foundation, whose main goal is eradication of breast cancer, support an organization who’s main focus is abortion? That is the issue, but both organizations have stated that they believe there is no link between abortions and breast cancer.
But why should the Koman foundation be funding Planned Parenthood? What does Planned Parenthood have to do with breast cancer? According to both the Koman Foundation and Planned Parenthood the funding is for breast cancer screenings. In my opinion Planned Parenthood is not the best use of this money and the Koman Foundation would be better able to provide breast screenings more cost effectively if they removed the middle man. This opinion has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood’s abortions, but rather it makes better business sense. It seems that the Koman Foundation is bending over backward to accommodate Planned Parenthood and I find their connection suspect. It seems, to me, that there must be something more going on. In order to do justice to the topic, I am eliminating both the Koman Foundation and Planned Parenthood from the discussion.
Back to the topic of abortion and breast cancer. I have looked over many studies, and there are studies to support both sides.
First, let me start by saying that I am pro-life. I do not believe in abortion and I believe that abortion is the killing of a baby. In conversations I have never used the alleged abortion/breast cancer link to support my belief. I do not need there to be a link between abortion and breast cancer for me to be pro-life. To me, the killing of an unborn baby is wrong, plain and simple. I have approached the topic with an open mind and have tried to present both sides fairly.
Those who support the “no-connection” theory, and that it has been proven debunked, will show you these from The National Cancer Institute based on a 2004 report of a 2003 workshop: "Risks of Abortion and Miscarriage" and "Causes of Cancer".
They include the results from a wide variety of studies and have been determined to be definitive proof by those who believe there is no connection. I have found that almost all of those who support the "no-connection" theory reference either this fact sheet or the conference that reported the study that this fact sheet is based on.
The American Cancer Society also links back to the above information from the National Cancer Institute report and they make the conclusion: "At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer."
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynocologists (ACOG) also refers to the 2003 workshop and the above information. They however preface the information with the following statement: "This document reflects emerging clinical and scientific advances as of the date issued and is subject to change. The information should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed."
On the other side of the debate is Dr. Joel Brind who counters in this 2005 article, in the “Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons”, that there was reporting bias in the 2003 workshop and subsequent 2004 report.
Dr. Brind has also mentioned that during the 2004 seminar, conflicting viewpoints were not allowed to be presented. In essence he is saying that, instead of investigation all data and letting the data dictate if the theory is true, they found data to support their theory and disregarded the rest. In some cases they may have even manipulated the studies to fit the theory.
This video of Dr. Brind is from the “Life Matters” program, again politicizing the issue.
It is difficult to look at all of these and not say they are biased. Each side has an agenda. On one side are the pro-abortionists wanting to prove that there is no increased risk of abortion and breast cancer, and then the pro-life side that wants to use the link as additional ammunition against abortion.
I do need to point out that the video’s that feature Dr. Brind give logical thought as to WHY there is a risk whereas the other studies simply say there is no link, end of story. Also Dr. Brind, while not the only one supporting the connection, is the most vocal. There are medical groups that support the connection theory, as well. Again, this list is published by abortion/breast cancer coalition.
So who do you believe?
I have done some research and came across this article from 2010, which is peer reviewed, but no one has yet used it as a weapon in this abortion/breast cancer link war. "Radiological Diagnostics of Frequent Interruption of Pregnancy as a Primary Factor of Breast Carcinomas." The conclusion of this study is that “Based on the researches done for the purposes of this project, we concluded that artificial interruption of pregnancy is one of the numerous causes (factors) of breast cancer arising.” This study does not appear to have any bias and does not seem to have been sponsored by any group.
In addition, the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute believes there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.
Here is the text from a pamphlet by the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute:
Abortion & Breast Cancer: Is there a Link? What is the Truth Behind the Controversy
How Does the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Work?
Two principles account for the link:
1. Estrogen Exposure
2. Breast Lobule Formation
Estrogen Exposure
As soon as conception occurs and even before implantation in the uterus, the embryo secretes a hormone, hCG (Human chorianic gonadotropin), which causes the mother’s ovaries to produce more estrogen and progesterone. This causes the mother’s breasts to become sore and tender.
In a viable pregnancy, estrogen levels increase 2,000% by the end of the 1st trimester. This surge in hormones causes the breasts to grow by making more Type 1 & 2 lobules where cancers can start. The breast doubles in volume by 20 weeks.
Breast Lobule Formation
•After 32 weeks of pregnancy, the Type 1 and 2 lobules mature into Type 3 and 4 lobules in preparation for breast feeding.
•If the pregnancy ends by elective abortion, the increase in numbers of Type 1 and 2 lobules formed in the first two trimesters provide more places for cancers to start, increasing risk.
•Women who never carry a pregnancy beyond 32 weeks never fully mature their breast tissue and have increased risk.
•Women who delay full-term pregnancy past age 30 have a 90% higher risk of breast cancer than those who carry a pregnancy to term by age 20.
A Woman’s Choice
A woman who chooses induced abortion of her first pregnancy:
•Denies herself the risk reduction of a full-term pregnancy.
•May never have children—a risk for breast cancer.
•Or, delay a full-term pregnancy which increases her risk of premenopausal breast cancer by 5% per year delayed after age 20.
A woman who chooses induced abortion after she has had a child:
•Denies herself a further 10% reduction in risk by another full-term pregnancy.
•Will have increased the number of Type 1 & Type 2 lobules where cancers start in her breast.
Here is a video that explains why it is believed that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer but it also has a segment where Dr. Brind’s explains about studies and how they should be done. This video is put out by an organization that supports the abortion/breast cancer link.
Note: the 2007 study that is mentioned in the video, cames after the 2004 report that supposedly “debunks” the theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Research Analysis, My Opinion:
Being that there are such conflicting reports, I cannot state for certain that there is not an abortion/breast cancer link. If you compare the evidence from one side or the other, the side supporting the link has presented a much better case with better references. The National Cancer Institute's fact sheet that everyone else seems to reference is lacking the information department. They make a list of findings, "studies show," but really no reference to the studies upon which those findings are based.
The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, on the other hand, seems to believe there is a connection as addressed in their pamphlet.
In addition, if you remove all of the previous studies that have been biasedly used and focus on the independent study of 2010, there seems to be more proof that there is a link than there is not. If there is a link and there is a cover up, would those involved in the cover up be guilty of negligence? Would they not be criminally liable for withholding pertinent information from those receiving abortions? It is unlikely there will be a conclusion to this debate anytime in the near future. Though in my mind it seems there is, indeed, a connection between abortion and an increased risk for breast cancer.
In an increasingly alarming trend children are being separated from their parents, in what basically amounts to kidnapping by government agencies. Illegal immigrants who are deported, are often being done so without their children. The children, instead of being sent back with their parents, are being placed in foster care and sometimes even given up for adoption.
In what is but one instance, the children of Felipe and Marie Montes were taken away from them, after he was deported, even though she wasn't. She is still living in North Carolina, trying to get them back, but they are about to be given up for adoption. To make things worse, two of their three children, were abused while in foster care. Both of the parents, and their American neighbours have petitioned for all three of them to be sent to join their father in Mexico.
Immigration is an important issue. But even more important is the family. A private party who did what government agencies do, would be imprisoned for kidnapping. These acts are clearly illegal and immoral, and must be stopped. If we are to deport the parents, we should not be breaking up the family, the children should be sent with them.
