Sunday, March 25, 2012

Why buying StarBucks coffee, is not the best idea for a faithful Christian

(SACNS Americas NewsSocial Justice South Africa)

Marc Aupiais  -  13:27  -  Public
Why buying StarBucks coffee, is not the best idea for a faithful Christian
Organization, sidelines Christian employees, creates hostile environment for marriage, lies to Middle East customers; Dump Starbucks is first boycott by NOM (National Organization for Marriage) in USA

Side Note: c.f. and and!/dumpstarbucks

EWTN NEWS | 'Boycott highlights Starbucks' radical stance on marriage' by Benjamin Mann | Washington D.C., Mar 24, 2012 / 07:14 am "“To say that they respect our opinion, when they've decided to use their clout as a corporation to redefine marriage, makes no sense,” he stated. “The way you respect our opinion is to stay out, not to take a corporate position.”

Brown also accused Starbucks of “lying to its shareholders and customers” in different parts of the world.

“On the Middle Eastern website, Starbucks Corporation says it takes no political stance. This is a political stance.”

“And the reason it does that, is because it knows that in the Middle East, in Southeast Asia, and all these areas, same-sex 'marriage' is overwhelmingly opposed. Therefore, it's telling its customers and shareholders one thing, and doing something entirely different.”

The National Organization for Marriage has never before called for a corporate boycott. It is doing so now, Brown said, because of Starbucks' decision to antagonize many of its employees and customers.

Individuals, he said, have a “right to speak and donate … to any candidate or cause that they choose.”

“It's a very different thing when your corporation itself takes a stand – stands up in the public square and says, essentially, those of us who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman are wrong, and they are going to fight against us.”

According to Brown, Starbucks' corporate culture is already becoming hostile to many Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others who support authentic marriage.
“I think that's already the case, by their own statements,” Brown noted.

“You can't, on one hand, say you 'respect our views' – and then engage the full weight of your corporation to stand against them in the public square.”"
Discuss on Google +

Supporters of authentic marriage between a man and woman are being urged to “Dump Starbucks,” over the corporation's push to give the institution a radically different meaning.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Obama Contraception Mandate Against existing Federal Laws, and against USA Constitution- Top USA Legal Experts claim

(SACNS Americas NewsSocial Justice South Africa)

Marc Aupiais  -  16:07 (edited)  -  Public
Obama Contraception Mandate Against existing Federal Laws, and against USA Constitution- Top USA Legal Experts claim
No pressing government reason, not least restrictive means (Title X: taxpayer money, it's claimed: would be), against Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, and USA constitution

A relevent side note: Most abortions, tend to occur, when the mother was on contraception already in the month of conception. STDs, such as HIV Aids, also tend to spread more, when condom use is encouraged. Simply put, contraception and "protection" encourages more dangerous behaviour, just as my car's good grip and airbags and seat belt encourage me to go faster. And interestingly enough, tend to have the reverse of the intended effect. More faith is put into them than they really deserve scientifically, and so the effect is the reverse.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's powers to the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, seem to be being abused by the Secretary, and USA Democrat President Barack Obama, in forcing Catholics and others to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs. "George Mason University law professor Helen Alvaré", "Michael McConnell, a former federal judge and current law professor at Stanford University Law School ", are two panelists quoted in this view (that the HHS mandate is an illegal abuse), from the 'March 22 panel on “Religious Freedom and Healthcare Reform,” sponsored by the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs'.

Catholic News Agency | 'Contraception mandate violates federal law, say legal experts' By Michelle Bauman | Washington D.C., Mar 24, 2012 / 06:05 am
Discuss on Google +

Washington D.C., Mar 24, 2012 / 06:05 am (CNA).- Legal experts believe that the Obama administration's contraception mandate fails to meet requirements needed to limit freedom of religion under fe...

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Washington Post Attacks Barack Obama government

(SACNS Americas NewsSocial Justice South Africa)

Marc Aupiais  -  07:05  -  Public
Washington Post Attacks Barack Obama government
"Unlimited Powers", "financial Manipulation", "violating the constitution"

The Washington Post, while asserting a critical theory of law, which dishonours the courts perhaps, has an interesting article slamming Obama.

See this article from the usually Obama-phile Post.

Post Opinions | The Washington Post | 'Obamacare: The reckoning' by Charles Krauthammer, a Washinton Post Opinion Writer | Friday, March 23, 1:50 AM

"But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true 10-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.
It gets worse. Annual gross costs after 2021 are more than a quarter of $1 trillion every year — until the end of time. That, for a new entitlement in a country already drowning in $16 trillion of debt."

"Beginning Monday, the Supreme Court will hear challenges to the law. The American people, by an astonishing two-thirds majority, want the law and/or the individual mandate tossed out by the court. In practice, however, questions this momentous are generally decided 5 to 4 — i.e., they depend on whatever side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy gets out of that morning.

Ultimately, the question will hinge on whether the Commerce Clause has any limits. If the federal government can compel a private citizen, under threat of a federally imposed penalty, to engage in a private contract with a private entity (to buy health insurance), is there anything the federal government cannot compel the citizen to do?
If Obamacare is upheld, it fundamentally changes the nature of the American social contract. It means the effective end of a government of enumerated powers — i.e., finite, delineated powers beyond which the government may not go, beyond which lies the free realm of the people and their voluntary institutions. The new post-Obamacare dispensation is a central government of unlimited power from which citizen and civil society struggle to carve out and maintain spheres of autonomy."

"All institutions — excepting only churches, but not excepting church-run charities, hospitals, etc. — will be required to offer health care that must include free contraception, sterilization and drugs that cause abortion."

"(1) Contraception, sterilization and abortion pills are classified as medical prevention. On whose authority? The secretary of health and human services, invoking the Institute of Medicine. But surely categorizing pregnancy as a disease equivalent is a value decision disguised as science. If contraception is prevention, what are fertility clinics? Disease inducers? And if contraception is prevention because it lessens morbidity and saves money, by that logic, mass sterilization would be the greatest boon to public health since the pasteurization of milk.

(2) This type of prevention is free — no co-pay. Why? Is contraception morally superior to or more socially vital than — and thus more of a “right” than — penicillin for a child with pneumonia?
(3) “Religious” exemptions to this edict extend only to churches, places where the faithful worship God, and not to church-run hospitals and charities, places where the faithful do God’s work. Who promulgated this definition, so stunningly ignorant of the very idea of religious vocation? The almighty HHS secretary."
View on Google Plus

Movement to end reckless business in America, gains ground

(SACNS Americas NewsSocial Justice South Africa)

Marc Aupiais  -  06:59  -  Public
South Africa, blanketed itself from World Financial Crises with reckless credit regulations, perhaps this movement will gain these in USA
Movement opposes greed

Here in South Africa, a loan must be repayable, and the bank must insure it is based on extensive checks, otherwise the law hits the bank. Perhaps more regulation will hit USA also.

Challenging the establishment is as old as history. Sometimes going out directly to the public is the avenue needed to have one's voice truly heard. The collapse of the former Soviet Union was spa...

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

US citizens to be forced to personally pay for surgical abortion under USA Obamacare "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

(SACNS Americas NewsScripturelink Voters' Guide and PoliticsCatholic Watchdog South Africa)

  -  13:20  -  Public
US citizens to be forced to personally pay for surgical abortion under USA Obamacare "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"
Surgical abortion (in the case of citizens), added to contraception, chemical abortion, sterilization mandatory insurance already would be forced to cover.

The Catholic Bishops, and others, have raised concern, over the new implementation, of regulations within Obamacare, which will now force Americans buying mandatory Health Insurance, to directly fund abortion with a 1$ or above mandatory surcharge for the surgical practice. While insurers may choose to offer a plan excluding abortion, if they include it, for which they will be subsidized, they will get federal tax subsidies towards funding abortions, they need not inform potential clients beforehand, and may not inform them of how much of the surcharge goes towards abortion. Those buying insurance, also may not opt out of funding abortions, as the regulations forbid insurers from permitting this based on any grounds including religion, or conscientious objection. They will be forced to stick with abortion funding insurance, only informed of it, in a benefits list in small print, given to those who buy insurance. This extends to the majority, who will get insurance through their employer, or based on which doctors networks are covered by an insurer, who will have no option in American law, but to fund abortion directly through the 1$ or above surcharge.

This latest move is in addition to regulations forcing employees (through their employers plans), to fund sterlization, abortion causing drugs such as the morning after pill, and ordinary contraception. Barack Obama, has announced , through the White House's mechanisms, that Universities will now also be forced to add students into Obamacare, meaning that their abortions will be funded by ordinary Americans, and other students.

While the American White House, in Washington DC, Washington State, has already claimed that funding of measures to prevent children being born, saves costs, KPMG has warned of catastrophic consequences to the USA economy and state due to aging population, a euphemism for low birth rates, if its birth rate does not increase, or at least stop decreasing.

Abortion now mandatory part of plans, Insurance buyers, not to be told plans cover it until actually in the plan and made to pay 1$ up surcharge, US government to pay insurance providers to cover abortions also.


Abortion now mandatory part of plans, Insurance buyers, not to be told plans cover it until actually in the plan and made to pay 1$ up surcharge, US government to pay insurance providers to cover abortions also.

Obama's "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" Act extends controversial population control measures to college/University students

Population decline, not population increase is the real problem:
KPMG Public Institutions study reveals likely catastrophic future for Western Nations:

Main story source: