The Nightmare Clinic: The Horrifying True Story

AP Images

WARNING: This post contains graphic and disturbing content. Reader discretion is advised.

It's inner-city Philadelphia.  Towering over the narrow streets looms an old brick building with the faded, red letters: "Family Planning."

But what you find inside is far worse than the outside.

You step through the door, and your nose wrinkles from the pungent smell of urine.

Blood is on the floor.

A flea-infested cat brushes by you, defecating as it dashes up the stairs.

If you dare to venture deeper into the eerie clinic, the horrors only increase.

In the recovery room, you find semiconscious women moaning on dirty recliners, wrapped in blood-stained blankets.  Those blankets have only been washed once this week.

You pass the operating rooms housing old, deteriorating, faulty equipment.  The surgical instruments lying in the sink have never been sterilized.

But the worst of all horrors are hidden in the far back room and the dark basement below.  Heart pounding, you cautiously push the door open and, with a wince of dread, flick on the light.  You gasp at the horrid sight of shelves filled with jars of severed baby feet, boxes and bags of infant parts, and mangled aborted fetuses in bottles and in the open.  An unearthly shriek startles you; it's one of the babies, lying on a glass tray; it's eyes and mouth are still not completely formed but it still made a noise. A shiver like cold ice creeps down your spine and your breath becomes short.

You've had enough.

You bolt out of the room, trying to escape this nightmare.  But you are lost.  How do you get out of this place?  You find an emergency exit and slam your body weight against it, but it's padlocked.  Twenty minutes later you find your way to the front and burst out the door, panting.

Is this a scene from a horror movie?

No, this is real life.

This is Dr. Kermit Gosnell's abortion clinic.

Credit Jessica Kourkounis, The New York Times

Before reaching the spotlight today, Dr. Gosnell first received approval to open his clinic in 1979.  However, the Pennsylvania Department of Health was not much in the practice of inspecting facilities like Gosnell's.  It wasn't until ten years later that they reviewed his clinic again.  Already the site had numerous violations, but Gosnell was allowed to continue operating on the promise that he would fix them.  More reviews in 1992 and 1993 again yielded a discovery of violations, and again the department believed Gosnell's promises that would fix them.

After 1993, for political reasons, the department stopped inspecting clinics at all.  Even as disturbing complaints came in — patients leaving with the same venereal disease, illegal abortions on minors and late-term pregnancies, a 41-year old woman dying at Gosnell's hands — the department opted not to investigate the "house of horrors" operating under their noses.

Finally, in 2011, the FBI raided Gosnell's facility on reports of "illegal drug activity".  The uncertified "doctor" had been, in addition to running a grisly abortion mill at night, selling painkillers to drug dealers and addicts from his daytime office.  The FBI, of course, found far more than drugs.  Scattered throughout the nauseating conditions, they found stored body parts and fetuses; some which had been killed after they left the mother, and others far past the 24-week limit for legal abortions.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell (ABC News)

"My grasp of the English language doesn't really allow me to fully describe how horrific this clinic was," said Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams during the recent trial. "Rotting bodies, fetal remains, the smell of urine throughout, blood-stained." (7)

According to the Washington Examiner, Dr. Gosnell was often behind in paying bills, and the disposal provider might delay picking up the dead babies for months.  Sometimes the rotting corpses would be left out overnight.  "You knew about it the next day when you opened the door..." One employee said. "Because you could smell it as soon as you opened the door." (7)

Reports also revealed that Gosnell allowed some of the newborn corpses to fall into the toilets, until it would clog up the plumbing.  According to a handyman for the clinic, "I told the doc I would remove the toilet and lay it on its side, but somebody else would have to clean that out." (7)

But perhaps the most condemning and most news-stirring discovery of all was the shocking claim from a number of Gosnell's employees: His slaughtering of infants was not limited to within the womb.

According to his employees, if a baby was still moving when it left the mother, he would snip the spinal cord with scissors.  "Ensuring fetal demise", as he called it.  The media has been calling it "infant beheading."  He taught many of his uncertified, unqualified employees how to do this.  Several of his former employees have pleaded guilty to this kind of murder.

Dr. Gosnell himself was charged with seven original counts of first-degree murders of infants (although three of those have been thrown out).  In addition, he was charged with third-degree murder of the 41-year-old patient who died in his hands from an overdose of anesthesia and painkillers.

He faces the death penalty if proven guilty.

Dr. Gosnell's mug shot

Today, the deliberations begin for Dr. Gosnell's trial.  I am praying for justice.  I can't help but think that God gave Gosnell 30 years to change... 30 years since his clinic opened, three warnings from the health department, three chances to cease his sick and twisted practices.  Even for a man like Dr. Gosnell — a man who made jokes as he plunged scissors into moving babies, a man who favored his white patients over his patients of color, a man who treated patients better according to how well they could pay, a man who ate dinner with still-bloody latex gloves while interviewed by the FBI, a man who made millions off of his disrespect for human life, both that of the babies he killed and the mothers he claimed to help — even for a man like this, God would show mercy... God would show grace... God would give him second and third chances to change his ways.

But time's up.

I can't speak for Dr. Gosnell's soul.  But I pray that the courts will decide on the side of truth, and that, at least in this life, Gosnell will receive the punishment he deserves.  People that like him that practice such evil should not be allowed to live in our society, or in any other.

May the truth be revealed and justice be served.


For Comments

Let me hear your thoughts.  Do you think Gosnell deserves the death penalty?  Do you think this story is just a pro-life issue, or is it a human rights issue that all ends of the political spectrum should be concerned with?  How do you think the trial will conclude?

Research and Further Reading

(1) http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/12/10-of-the-most-shocking-allegations-in-the-gruesome-house-of-horrors-that-was-dr-kermit-gosnells-abortion-clinic-warning-graphic/

(2) http://www.policymic.com/articles/34339/dr-kermit-gosnell-s-abortion-trial-why-isn-t-the-media-covering-it

(3) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/abortion-doc-snipped-moving-babies-spines-witness-article-1.1314193

(4) http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/26/truth-about-kermit-gosnell-trial/

(5) http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Gosnell-Defense-204050851.html

(6) http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2013/04/12/exp-erin-abortion-doctor-panel.cnn (video)

(7) http://washingtonexaminer.com/58-horrific-details-from-the-gosnell-trial-that-you-do-not-want-to-read/article/2527524

(8) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us/23doctor.html (article from when story first broke out)

(9) http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf (full story: Grand Jury report)

(10) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/us/trial-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Maybe it's good we elected Obama...

A common myth says that when you put a frog in boiling water, he will jump out; but if you heat up the water slowly, the frog will not realize the gradual change before he cooks to death.

While the scientific validity of the story has been disputed, the old metaphor still rings true.  Particularly with today's political climate in America.

There's no doubt that our democratic republic has been slowly veering toward socialism for a long time.  Like a scientist gradually cranking up the heat on that stove, we've been inching closer to a new form of government... president by president, administration by administration, legislation by legislation.  This has been largely under the guise of a term many politicians use: "progressivism".

As quoted by Hillary Clinton, when asked to define the word "liberal":

"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family." (1) (Emphases added)

In other words, "progressivism" is Franklin D. Roosevelt... it's redistribution of wealth, it's a nanny state, it's leveling the playing field, it's the big ole government taking care of us helpless toddling citizens... it's socialism.

Progressivism is rampant in both the Democratic and Republican parties.  While the Democratic party is probably more well-known for its strong progressive members, the threatening ideology crops up in Republican circles as well... just maybe with more subtlety.

For example?

Barack Obama's opponents.

Yes, both John McCain and Mitt Romney are progressives.  Despite firm attempts to align themselves with right-wing values during their campaigns, had either of them been elected, we would have ultimately continued on the same, slow path path to socialism that we've been on for decades.

Glenn Beck, a radio host and former Fox News personality, even thought "John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama." (3) (Emphasis added)

If they're all progressives, what's the difference between Obama and his past opponents?

I'd like to say that if most progressives are like horse-drawn carriages casually pattering off to socialism, Obama is like a super jet....

...Careening into destruction.

The documentary, 2016: Obama's America, and many sources like it, have delved into the mire of Obama's covert past and questionable connections.  If what the evidence implies is true, Obama is not just a progressive... he's a radical.  And he wants to push his extreme agenda down America's throat as fast as he can, squeezing in as much as he can manage into his eight years of office.

Kind of like dropping a frog in boiling water.

I'm not glad Obama is our president.  But maybe, in an unexpected way, Obama is exactly what our country needs.  Maybe the startling changes he brings will wake us up to our dire situation... and we will finally realize, as a nation, that this collision course has got to stop.

But will it be too late?

Modern scientists have pointed out several inaccuracies with the frog-in-water myth.  One of which is that, even if you dropped a frog in boiling liquid, the poor guy wouldn't be able to leap out because the heat would immediately damage his legs.  Even though he would be aware of the danger and would try to escape it, once the damage is done, he's a goner.

America's fate is uncertain now.  Only time will tell if Obama will be the catalyst for an awakening... or the final, deadly note in our republic's waning song.


Sources and Further Reading

(1) YouTube Debate: Hillary - Are You a Liberal? July 23, 2007. http://youtu.be/C2oOoCdFblc

(2) LeBoutillier, John. What Does John McCain Stand For? May 23, 2008. http://www.newsmax.com/JohnLeboutillier/john-mccain/2008/05/23/id/323771

(3) Glenn Beck: McCain Worse Than Obama. September 23, 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-504423_162-5328053.html

(4) Jessup, Meredith. Tea Party Vs. Progressive Republicans -- Battle For the Soul of the GOP. December 3, 2012. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/03/tea-party-vs-progressive-republicans-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-gop/

(5) Kruszelnichi, Dr. Karl S.. Frog Fable Brought to Boil. http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2011/03/frog-fable-brought-to-boil/

Red Dawn a reality?

In the latest Red Dawn movie, North Korean forces invade and gain control over portions of the United States.

Is this scenario a true possibility?

Recent threats from North Korea's young leader, Kim Jong Un, to launch long-range missiles to the U.S. mainland and "settle accounts with the U.S. imperialists", have stirred some concern, and not to mention media buzz. There's no doubt that tension is growing on the Korean peninsula. In the current climate, it is possible that a small, even accidental provocation from either side could spark war. But the idea of North Korea launching anything, especially a Red-Dawn-style invasion, to United States soil is far-fetched.

North Korea still has a long way to go before they could back up their lofty threats of attack against the U.S. They also know that, if they attacked South Korea, the retaliation from their southern neighbors would wipe out North Korea, even without the help of America.

The real concern, according to Jim Walsh, an international security expert and research associate at MIT, is that an "accidental war" could spiral out of control. A small provocation could launch an all-out conflict with chaotic consequences, even if most of the death toll is on North Korea's end. (1)

Maybe Kim Jong Un doesn't have the military advancements yet to back up his claims, but he sure does mean business. Maybe North Korea should be overlooked, or maybe it's just a matter of time. Should we take their threats seriously? What do you think?

Further reading:
(1) Fox News: "What Kind of Attack Could North Korea Launch?"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/29/what-kind-attack-could-north-korea-launch/
(2) The Telegraph: "North Korea: 'outbreak of war hours away' as Kim Jong-un plans US strike"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9961610/North-Korea-outbreak-of-war-hours-away-as-Kim-Jong-un-plans-US-strike.html
(3) CNN: "No end in sight for North Korea tensions"
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/29/no-end-in-sight-for-north-korea-tensions/?hpt=hp_t1

Is Romney's campaign copying Obama?

While visiting Mitt Romney's and Barack Obama's websites today, I couldn't help but realize how closely Romney's campaign design resembles Obama's.  Their sites are nearly the exact same layout, and even their campaign symbols have suspicious similarities.  I wonder if this is a purposeful campaign tactic on Romney's part.  What do you think?




The campaign symbols

Obama's symbol

Romney's symbol

Opening web page

Barackobama.com

Mittromney.com

Home page

Barackobama.com

Mittromney.com

Here you can see another small similarity in their website designs:

The Truth About Global Warming

This post is from a speech given on December 8, 2011.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Rising sea levels! Savage storms! Starvation! Disease, extinction, death! The world is going to end soon, and it's all our fault. Or is it? 

We have been taught that if we don't stop global warming, the world will quickly burn to a crisp, and it will become uninhabitable for the billions of people and animals that call it home. But is global warming really all that our political and scientific authorities portray it as?

The book Climatism! by Steve Goreham states: "..the scientific evidence for man-made global warming is thin and… global warming has become a political agenda driven by fear." While the propaganda for global warming is all around us, little-circulated evidence shows that global warming is not what authorities are telling us it is.

Today, we're going to look at three things: First, evidence that CO2 does not cause global warming; second, evidence for a naturally-caused climate cycle; and third, evidence that authorities portray global warming deceptively in order to grab power.

To begin, let's look at the evidence that CO2, or carbon dioxide, does not cause global warming. CO2 is allegedly one of the largest "greenhouse" gases; a gas emitted by humans that is causing global warming. 

First, CO2 has risen over the past decade, but the earth has not. As stated in a dailytech.com article by Jason Mick, published last month: "… researchers are struggling to explain why warming has stalled in the last decade even as levels of carbon dioxide -- supposedly the most important greenhouse gas have [risen]."

Second, according to Unstoppable Global Warming by environmental scientists S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, the current warming has been ongoing since 1850, long before human-generated CO2 was entering the atmosphere.

Third, CO2 levels do not explain the many warming/cooling cycles in earth's previous history, when humans were not emitting CO2 (which I'll get to in a second.)

Fourth -- and this one is important -- in August 2009, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen published a paper proving that CO2's affect on global temperatures is less than 1/6th of what the UN says it is. His research showed that CO2 is escaping into space, like it always has before levels began rising, and it is not causing the greenhouse affect. His work was peer-reviewed, and no one argued with it.

Fifth, evidence shows that CO2 has been a lagging indicator, not a cause, of global warming during earth's past warming periods, which I'll explain momentarily.

Now that we've seen some evidence that CO2 is not the cause of global warming, let's explore some evidence that global warming is part of a natural climate cycle.

According to the book Unstoppable Global Warming, new yet convincing evidence indicates that the earth has been experiencing a warming/cooling cycle for thousands of years. Evidence for this cycle has been retrieved from ice cores, tree rings, seabed sediments, stalagmites from caves, coral reefs, and many other sources. It appears that this cycle repeats itself about every 1500 years. From 600 BC to the present, there have been at least six major warming/cooling periods, including the modern "global warming" (see the image below). 

Slide from my speech's PowerPoint. (Data from Unstoppable Global Warming.)

What causes these climate cycles? In a word, the sun. 

In 2001, Gerard Bond and a team from Columbia University published a report in the journal Scientist. This report revealed a solar cycle that corresponds to earth's climate cycle. In other words, as the sun's power waxes and wanes, the earth's temperature warms and cools. This link between earth's climate and the sun has actually been known for over four centuries, so this is not new science; it is just that scientists finally know how this link works.

Now, you're hearing me say all this -- that CO2 does not cause global warming, that it's part of a natural cycle -- and you're maybe wondering: But, what about the UN's climate change body, AKA the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? Didn't they make some official report, saying there was a consensus worldwide among scientists that human-caused global warming was a fact? The answer is yes; but this leads us into our third point: that authorities portray global warming deceptively in order to gain power. 

First, there was false science in IPCC's report. Now, listen to this: According to Unstoppable Global Warming, IPCC's 1996 report was edited to include the statement about a "human fingerprint" on global warming. The original scientific summary said specifically, in five different statements, that no such "human fingerprint" had been found, but these statements were removed. 

Why? The author of this document publicly admitted making these changes; he was under pressure from U.S. government officials to do so.

Second, other evidence exists that fraud and deception exists in the climate science community. For example, in the infamous "Climategate" email leaks, in 2009 and again just two weeks ago, thousands of emails showed climate scientists manipulating data and covering up information. In one such email, scientist Tom Wigley said to a colleague:

"Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive… there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC." 

Here's another interesting quote:

"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary. I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run." - Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office

(Read more email quotes here, and download a torrent of the emails here.)

Now, please note: there is much, much more I could say, in regards to evidence for deception among the climate science community, but I don't have time or room here. I recommend looking it up yourself; you may be surprised what you find. Here are a few resources to get you started:

• Red Hot Lies by Christopher C. Horner
• Wattsupwiththat.com article: Climategate 2.0
• Forbes.com article: Climategate 2.0
• Wattsupwiththat.com Climategate 2.0
• Dailytech.com article: Climategate 1.0
• Dailytech.com article: Climategate 2.0 (This article was very interesting and useful for my research... note especially the emails about "covering up" information, and the paragraphs at the end of the article about the billions of dollars at stake if global warming is proven false. See also the part about global warming supporters blasting a comprehensive climate change study -- done by the University of California -- because it suggested that temperatures were not rising, and that global warming could have natural causes.)

What disturbs me is how much political power, on a national and international scale, could be gained in the name of "fighting global warming". Politicians are asking for power to regulate this and control that. It looks like a good cause on the surface, absolutely, but when we see evidence that the science might be skewed, doesn't it make you just a little suspicious about why they are so adamant about getting this power? We need to be careful and check our politicians' sources, and never let them grab power on the base of a lie.

In the words of Al Gore: 

 "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is."

Conclusion

Today, we have looked at three things. First, CO2 does not cause global warming. Second, global warming is part of a natural, sun-caused climate cycle. And third, there are authorities who portray global warming deceptively in order to gain power. 

As you can see, global warming is not what authorities are telling us it is. So, next time you see a policymaker asking for you to vote or support something to give him or her more power to "fight global warming", be careful. Check to see if his or her motives are pure. Because while it's good to be green, beware of when green becomes greed.

Slide from my speech's PowerPoint

Works cited

Cotter, Dianna.  "Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist."  Examiner.com.  18 August 2009.  Web.  3 December 2011.

"Global Warming 101."  Ucsusa.org.  27 January 2011.  Web.  30 November 2011. 

Goreham, Steve.  Climatism!: Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century's Hottest Topic.  New Lenox:  New Lenox Books, 2010.  Print.

Horner, Christopher C.  Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.  Washington, DC:  Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2008.  Print.

"Is there a connection between the ozone hole and global warming?"  Ucsusa.org.  

13 July 2009.  Web.  30 November 2011.

Mick, Jason.  "Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming."  Dailytech.com.  25 November 2011.  Web.  30 November 2011.

Singer, S. Fred and Dennis T. Avery.  Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.  Lanham:  Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2007.  Print.

"Unstoppable Solar Cycles."  Youtube.com.  13 March 2008.  Web.  1 December 2011

More recommended reading/viewing

Lindzen, Richard S. "The Climate Science Isn't Settled."

Lord Christopher Monckton on Climate Change: YouTube video 

Lord Christopher Monckton, Climate Change Treaty: YouTube video

Lord Christopher Monckton, Is Obama Poised to Cede U.S. Sovereignty? YouTube Video

Unstoppable Solar Cycles: YouTube video

Elections Volunteering: My Thoughts on the Experience

I forgot to post about this a long time ago!  Back in Fall 2010, I volunteered for some local elections.  I thought you might want to know a little bit about my experience... maybe even as a heads-up, if you ever do this kind of volunteer work yourself! 

What I Did

* I worked for the local Republican party in my county, for the campaign of a candidate running for the House of Representatives who would represent my district.   I volunteered on two separate days:

* Day 1: A few weeks or so before election day, I worked at the GOP booth in a local, neighborhood festival.  The main purpose of the booth was to spread awareness and offer information about the candidate I was volunteering for.  I was there for five hours... but I didn't actually do very much.  Occasionally, I handed out balloons with the candidate's name on them, and for a little while I stood in a street median, in front of the festival, waving campaign signs to cars (THAT was fun).  But, mostly I just sat around and talked/listened to other Republican volunteers at the booth, waiting to be needed.

Handing out balloons

Waving campaign signs with another volunteer 

* Day 2: On election day, I "worked the poll" for three hours, at a local school where voting was taking place.  What that means, is I handed out Republican party sample ballots (slips of paper that told you who to vote for, if you were voting Republican).  The ballots also included some information about the state constitutional amendments that were being proposed, that civilians were voting on.

Working the poll

Cool & Interesting Things...

* At the festival, I got to shake the hand of the candidate I was volunteering for.  (Honestly, it wasn't as exciting as you might think it would be.  He shook hands with EVERYONE else at the festival.)  :-)

* In addition to handing out sample ballots on election day, I handed out literature with a local (very local) politician who was running for the board in her neighborhood.  She was handing out her information to convince people to vote for her.


* Interestingly, there was no opposition in either place (the festival or the school).  The candidate I was volunteering for ended up winning (this was his gazillionth time or so in office >_>), so the other party probably just knew they had no chance in this particular election... but that is not always the case!!

What I Learned (About the Political Process)

* A lot of (political) volunteer work is really easy and really boring; standing around waiting to be available, handing out literature, doing other mundane things like sealing envelopes or making phone calls (neither of which I did, in that particular volunteer experience).


* It often doesn't take much to try to convince someone to vote for someone; just make the candidate's name known (put up signs, make phone calls, send political advertisements in the mail).  This is not always the case, of course; but some people are just too busy to do any more research about the candidates.  To demonstrate this fact: on election day, one man came up to me, and the politician I was working with, and asked us who he should vote for!  He was coming to vote, and he had no idea who he was going to vote for!  I don't think this is a good thing, but it is, unfortunately, a fact here in America (at least, around where I live): a lot of people simply don't do research on the candidates... so, it often doesn't take much to convince them to vote a certain way.  (Again, I wish it WASN'T this way.)


Other Reflections on the Experience...

Reflection #1: While a lot of the people I worked with were REALLY nice, I often noticed an attitude (in their conversations) of "us against them".  The way they would mention the "other side" made it seem as if they (Republicans) were "all right", and the other side (Democrats) was "all wrong".  I'm not saying all Republicans are like that; that's just what I witnessed with the small group of people I was around.  

Sometimes I wish people would not see it as so black and white, but, so it often is with politics.  (Now, don't misunderstand me: morals, values, and virtues are always black and white, and they should never be compromised.  I'm not talking about morals; I'm simply talking about political parties.  I don't think it's a good, or Christlike, attitude to treat the other political party like it's made up of 100% bad-guys, and your own political party like it's 100% good-guys.  It's just politics.  But, that's just my opinion.)

Reflection #2: Remember how I said I worked with a politician on election day, who was asking people to vote for her?  Well, there was something I noticed, consistently, as she carried on conversations with people: wrapped up in all the different questions and conversations, people seemed to have one central question for her: "So, Ms. Politician, what are you going to do for us?"  They wanted to know, how would having her in office affect their day-to-day lives?  

I thought it was interesting, because it probably reflected the general attitude towards politics that most people have.  Does this matter for my normal life?  Will it affect my family, job, home, etc.?  Otherwise, why should I stop my regular life too long to pay attention to politics if it doesn't directly affect my regular life?

Politicians are so wrapped up in politics, that sometimes they forget that most normal people don't care about politics in the way they do.  They just care about: how does it affect my day-to-day life?  It's something politicians should remember if they ever want to relate to us "ordinary" citizens.  They should remember what our perspective on politics is.

Summary

All in all... volunteering like this is always a good experience.  It's a great way to step out of your comfort zone, expand your field of experience a little more, and even learn something (in this case, learn a little bit about politics).  What I did for the elections was an easy, and (at times) somewhat boring process... but, I'm glad I did it.


Comment Suggestions :-)

Have you had any "adventures" involving volunteer work or politics?  Any words of advice or caution, for people wanting to volunteer for a cause or get involved in politics?  Please share your thoughts!

Is Jesus a Socialist?

Do Jesus' words in the gospels promote socialism?  I thought this article dealt with the subject very well... (see the link below)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/04/26/msnbcs-odonnell-slams-limbaugh-biblically-ignorant-goes-contort-script

America's Next President?

Donald Trump (above) is a self-made millionaire who may run for president on the Republican ticket in 2012.  While he has no political background, many people are finding him attractive because of his enormous experience involving money and finances (a worthy presidential quality for attacking the present financial situation in America), and his no-nonsense, assertive personality.  

Just out of curiosity, what do other people think about him?  Do you like him?  Dislike him?  Despise him?  If you're a Republican or conservative, would you vote for him?  Are there other potential Republican candidates that you would rather vote for?  I welcome all honest comments.

Good News About Obamacare

There is a fight going on right now in the legal system to decide whether or not Obama's health care law is constitutional.  Multiple lawsuits have sprung up against the national government, saying that it has gone too far.  The specific portion of the health care bill that has been attacked as unconstitutional is its provision that citizens HAVE to buy the government-run health insurance, or else pay a penalty... in the form of a fine or jail time!

One such lawsuit has been filed in Virginia.  The Virginia attorney general, Kenneth Cuccinelli, is pressing a new state law that would prohibit the government from forcing Viriginian residents to buy the health insurance.  Here's the good news: a federal judge, Henry E. Hudson, recently sided with Cuccinelli, declaring that the health care law is unconstitutional.  He is the first federal judge to strike down the health care law in this way.

Officials in the Obama administration say that this would have no impact on the health care law, because important parts of it don't take effect until 2014.  Other people disagree with the administration's claim, such as Greta Van Susteren from Fox News.

Read more at this link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fed-judge-rules-in-favor-of-va-hc-law-challenge/.

The FBI and 9/11: Could It Have Been Prevented?

The FBI seal

“The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations – which serve, as our mission states, 'to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.' ”¹ This quote is from the FBI's website; it expresses the FBI's mission, to “protect and defend” us against terrorism and foreign threats, and to enforce the laws at home. These are their responsibilities. But how well are they carrying them out? In the years and months leading up to 9/11, the largest terrorist attack on American soil, the FBI missed many clues that may have helped prevent the attack. Could 9/11 have been prevented? And are we protected from events like 9/11 happening in the future? 

 

One of the first missed clues by the FBI was more than ten years before 9/11. As described by the National Geographic TV special, “Inside 9/11,” a reporter witnessed a radical Islamic meeting taking place here in the United States. Shocked, he called the authorities, but they told him, “We don't know what you've been drinking.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the FBI, completely ignored his tip. 

 

Later, in 1990, there was another instance of the FBI's negligence. A Jihadist terrorist shot a Jew in the first successful attack of al Queda, Sudam Hussein's organization that would later be responsible for 9/11. The FBI and other investigative groups examined the terrorist's home, but overlooked many papers that contained information about al Queda, including future targets of the organization.

While the future hijackers of 9/11 lived in the United States for years, preparing for the meticulously planned-out attack, the FBI did not seem to notice them. Only months before the attack in 2001, the FBI received information about potential terrorists enrolled in flight schools, but they did not act on it in time. The information did not reach higher-level FBI agents until after 9/11.

 The four hijacker-pilots of 9/11

Only ninety-one days before the attack, Special Agent Robert G. Wright Jr., a member of the FBI, criticized the FBI in a memo, saying that American lives would be lost because of the FBI's failure to investigate terrorists living in the U.S. Months later, he charged that corruption inside the organization was responsible for the FBI's failure to stop 9/11. “The FBI is not protecting the American people,” he said.² Although Wright was threatened by the FBI Director with criminal prosecution if he went public about the bureau's misdeeds, he defied his boss and spoke about them at a press conference in Washington, DC. 

 Robert Wright at the conference in D.C.

 

At the conference, Wright brought information about a Muslim FBI agent who had refused to record a telephone conversation with a suspect terrorist. The agent is quoted in two sworn statements as saying, “a Muslim does not record another Muslim.”³ One of the statements was from Wright, and the other was from a retired agent named Barry Carmody, who wrote, “I informed FBI headquarters twice about this incident in 1998 and again in 2000, but I am aware of no disciplinary action being taken against him in this matter.”⁴

Wright was not the only FBI member to criticize the bureau as it related to the 9/11 attacks. FBI legal counsel, Coleen Rowley, claimed in a memo that 9/11 could have been prevented, and that the FBI Director, Robert Mueller, covered up for senior FBI officials. Also, according to Wright's lawyers, the FBI had evidence that the World Trade Center was a possible target of terrorists. 

 

“I love America,” Wright told reporters at the conference. “and likewise I love the FBI, particularly its purpose and mission. However, the mission has been seriously jeopardized to the point where American lives have been needlessly lost.”⁵

Wright also stated that the responsibility of handling terrorism should be moved from the hands of the FBI. “Knowing what I know,” he said. “I can confidently say that until the investigative responsibilities for terrorism are transferred from the FBI, I will not feel safe.”⁶

So, why exactly is the FBI incompetent with handling terrorism affairs? Is it a lack of efficiency? Is it a failure to learn from past mistakes? According to Reason Magazine, “It was bureaucratic hubris, not a lack of actionable intelligence, that allowed 9/11 to happen.”⁷ The FBI and other branches of government had all the evidence that an attack like 9/11 was coming, but they were too slow to respond, did not connect the dots, and in many cases, simply did not take the threats seriously. 

 

You may ask, what should have been done to prevent 9/11? One thing is that the FBI should have assumed the worst, and paid more attention to evidence of potential attacks. They should have taken every threat seriously, and kept a close eye on details. Also, according to the FBI agent Robert Wright, there was – and still is – corruption and inefficiency in the bureau that needs to be cut out for it to work the way it should. 

 

Am I blaming the FBI for 9/11? No, I am not; if 9/11 could possibly be blamed on any aspect of the U.S. government, it would not be exclusively on the FBI, but on many different government agencies and departments that all failed to detect the tremors signaling the coming attack. But the FBI should have learned from their mistakes; they messed up, and the right thing to do would be to recognize their wrongdoings and adjust their focus accordingly to prevent these mistakes from happening again. Unfortunately, they have not done this.

The recent Fort Hood shootings are a perfect example of how the FBI and other investigative groups still seem to be unable to prevent acts of terrorism in our country. There was evidence before the shootings that Nidal Hasan, the shooter, might carry out an act of violent terrorism, but people in authority who could have taken action against him were too afraid of being “politically incorrect.” A CBS poll in November 2009 showed that 51% of Americans believed that the Fort Hood shootings could have been prevented.

 Nidal Hasan, the shooter at Fort Hood

Agent Robert Wright warned ninety-one days before 9/11 that American lives would be lost because of the FBI's failures to investigate terrorists in our country. I hope and pray that his next warning will not also ring true: “...more terrorist attacks against the American interests, coupled with the loss of American lives, will have to occur before those in power give this matter the urgent attention it deserves.”⁸

Footnotes  

1"What We Investigate." http://ww.fbi.gov/hq.htm

2 Vernon, Wes. "Agent: FBI Could Have Prevented 9-11." 31 May 2002. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/30/161204.sht

ml

3Ibid.

4Ibid.

5Ibid.

6Ibid.

7 Taylor, Jeff. "Rant: Unconnected Dots: Why the FBI Failed to Stop 9/11." 22 November 2007.

http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/22/rant-unconnected-dots

8 Vernon, Wes. "Agent: FBI Could Have Prevented 9-11." 31 May 2002.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/30/161204.shtml

 

Other Sources

“Inside 9/11.” National Geographic.  

Montopoli, Brian. “Poll: 51% Say Fort Hood Could Have Been Prevented.” 17 November 2009. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- 5687337-503544.html

 

Wong, Alex. 30 May 2002. “FBI Special Agent Disclosed Failures.”   http://www.life.com/image/1545936