Search the Community

I dont know what to say. Read the highlights, this bill is so extreme I dont know how ANYBODY can think this is ok. This isn't a religious issue, per se as it is more of an issue of right and wrong https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/24/8-shocking-facts-about-new-yorks-radical-abortion-law/ From the article: Here are eight facts about New York’s new abortion law: – The “fundamental” right to abortion is enshrined in the New York Constitution. “Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion, pursuant to this article,” the law states. – The law allows non-physicians to perform abortions. “A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion,” the law states. – The law allows abortion through the third trimester, including up to birth. “Third-trimester abortion will be allowed under the new law when a preborn child is diagnosed with a condition that will cause him or her to die at or shortly after birth,” Live Action reported. – The law removes protections for babies who survive an abortion procedure. “The new law removes protections for babies born alive after an abortion — meaning they could be left to die after birth — by rescinding a portion of New York’s public health law,” Live Action reported. Late-term abortions, until now, were illegal in the state of New York. – The law prevents pregnant women whose babies are killed in an attack on the mother from seeking justice and could result in infanticide by repealing the requirement for a second physician to be on hand in case an attempted abortion past 20 weeks yields a live infant. – The law states that an unborn child cannot be a victim of homicide if he dies while in the womb following an attack on the mother. “‘Person,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive,” the law states. – Pro-abortion advocates said the law would protect legal abortion even in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision to make abortion legal — a decision that did no go as far as the New York law. “[The law] not only increases access to abortion across the board, including late-term abortions but also goes beyond Roe, which left some limits in place,” Catholic News Service reported. – The law is to “prevent the enforcement of laws or regulations that are not in furtherance of a legitimate state interest in protecting a woman’s health that burden abortion access.” Now Catholics are calling for Andy to be excommunicated. Bishop of Albany very upset, as he should be. https://www.nyscatholic.org/2019/01/statement-on-passage-and-signing-of-abortion-expansion-legislation/ https://evangelist.org/Content/Default/Homepage-Rotator/Article/Bishop-writes-open-letter-to-Gov-Cuomo-/-3/141/27245

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/politics/cuomo-finds-endorsement-decision-in-grisanti-panepinto-race-difficult-20140919

They can create all the Illegal laws they want, it has been proven that gun owners would rather become felons with guns than to be victims of a corrupt Government that want to take away our rights. Facts do not lie and we will not comply! http://townhall.com/tipsheet/townhallmagazine/2014/04/12/the-assault-weapon-rebellion-n1822409?utm_source=ArticleFeelingsWidget What is Cuomo going to do? NOTHING!!! He should stick to banning soda to save us. So effective! True savior of NY, LMAO. Funny how abstract they get when power is at hand, like thinking you have a ticket to heaven on the fast track because you banned soda or guns. That is a good one! Funny how he has guns to protect him at all times yet he feels it is OK to take away your guns. Double standard? You better believe it!

Obama endorses Chinese proposal for an exception to his own executive order to protect wildlife? Obama issues executive order to protect wildlife; then backs a proposal from China to make an exception????? If you read the following two articles both which surfaced today, that seems to be the case.... News August 19, 2013 Obama’s Executive Order to Protect Wildlife Will US Drones Fight Foreign Poachers? August 8, 2013 Sonia Horon (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) President Obama is considering lending U.S. drones to Tanzania in an effort to combat the rapid growth of wildlife poaching. The population of elephants in Tanzania is declining at an alarming rate and wildlife groups estimate ten to twenty-five thousand elephants are killed in Tanzania every year for their ivory tusks. The areas in need of monitoring are too vast for rangers to properly monitor—leaving wildlife at further risk of being killed by greedy poachers. The news comes just weeks after Obama’s executive order to protect wildlife from illegal poaching. Read on to find out how the drones could help during this troublesome time. — Global Animal Approximately 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year. Photo credit: Stock photo Washington Times, Ashish Kumar Sen Tanzania’s storied wildlife reserves could soon get a watchful, winged inhabitant: U.S. drones. On his visit to the East African nation last month, President Obama discussed the possibility of using unarmed, unmanned aircraft to help overstretched park rangers combat the growing problem of elephant poaching in Tanzania’s vast wildlife reserves and national parks, Tanzanian Ambassador to the United States Liberata Mulamula told editors and reporters at The Washington Times this week. Wildlife groups estimate that 10,000 to 25,000 elephants are killed in Tanzania each year for their ivory tusks and the number of elephants in southern Tanzania has fallen by more than half. Much of the ivory is shipped illegally to Asian markets. “The extent of poaching is very, very, very high,” John Salehe, director of the African Wildlife Foundation’s Maasai Steppe, said in a phone interview from Tanzania. There has been sharp increase in elephant poaching over the past year, he said. Tanzanian officials say the area that needs to be monitored is vast with too few rangers. “There is trafficking, but also there is criminality, so we are fighting both,” said Mrs. Mulamula. “If we can work together, we can put an end to this.” That is where drones could play a crucial role. “The American administration is ready to put up funds to help us in areas where we think we can be able to work together and put an end to this trafficking and killings,” Mrs. Mulamula said. “One area, they said, was training [to] get more rangers. There was even suggestions that the U.S. government can help us with these drones.” Mrs. Mulamula said Mr. Obama did not make any commitment to provide drones to Tanzania. “But this was being said [in the discussions] that this was one of the possibilities,” she added. However, a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, later said the U.S. is not considering providing drones to Tanzania but declined to elaborate on a meeting between Mr. Obama and Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete in Tanzania on July 1. Right after that meeting, Mr. Obama acknowledged the threat posed by poaching and trafficking of animal parts. Mr. Obama issued an executive order to, in part, help foreign governments tackle the problem. “[T]his includes additional millions of dollars to help countries across the region build their capacity to meet this challenge, because the entire world has a stake in making sure that we preserve Africa’s beauty for future generations,” Mr. Obama said. An official of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also will be assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Dar es Salaam to support the Tanzanian government’s efforts to develop a wildlife security strategy. A State Department official, speaking on background, said the United States is “concerned by the growing involvement of transnational organized crime and armed militias in poaching and the illegal wildlife trade.” “These activities negatively impact economic livelihoods, health, security and the rule of law across the African continent.” Tanzania is not the only African nation where drones have been considered to combat the menace of poaching. The Ol Pejeta wildlife conservancy in Kenya has teamed up with Airware, a California-based firm, to build drones to protect endangered wildlife, including the northern white rhino, which is hunted for its horn. “We see the drone’s uses in three parts: deterrence, observation and tracking,” said Elodie Sampere, a spokeswoman for the Ol Pejeta Conservancy in Nanyuki, Kenya. The drones at Ol Pejeta are still in the test phase, but “just the rumor of an eye in the sky and the noise of it flying overhead will serve to deter potential incidents,” Mrs. Sampere said. The drones also would allow the conservancy to check on the safety of endangered animals and send critical information to rangers about the number of poachers and whether they are armed, she said. Drones also can track radio-frequency tags on endangered species, allowing rangers to monitor their movements. Ol Pejeta is looking for “a drone designed for conservation and not just an off-the-shelf ex-military solution,” Mrs. Sampere said. Drones have been used to monitor poachers in other parts of Africa as well, including the Kruger National Park in South Africa. In December, the World Wildlife Fund received a $5 million grant from Google to develop technological solutions to combat poaching. The project combines the use of drones with animal-tagging technologies and ranger patrols guided by analytical software. The technology will be tested over the three-year grant period in Africa and Asia. The illegal trade in ivory and rhino horn is driven by markets in Asia, particularly in China and Japan. Large quantities of ivory originating in Tanzania have been seized in the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong. “The challenges are enormous, especially because they have that huge market in Asia,” Mrs. Mulamula said. Although international trade in ivory is banned, a one-time sale in 2008 perpetuated a legal market for ivory in China and Japan, according to the African Wildlife Foundation. The Chinese government has not been cooperative in African efforts to reduce the illegal trade in ivory, said Arend de Haas, of the London-based African Conservation Foundation. “China should increase law enforcement, coordinate with African governments and consider destroying confiscated ivory stocks to show their commitment to combat the ivory trade,” he said. However, Mrs. Mulamula said the Chinese government is sympathetic to Tanzania’s concerns. Khamis Kagasheki, Tanzania’s minister of natural resources and tourism, has been spearheading anti-poaching efforts in his country, but wildlife groups say much more needs to be done. “The Tanzanian government has not been alert enough [regarding] the rise in elephant poaching in the region and country,” Mr. de Haas said. Tanzanian officials announced in July that more than 1,200 poaching suspects were arrested over a 15-month period that ended in March. It was not clear how many were involved in elephant poaching. Two ivory traders were arrested in July. Mr. de Haas said official elephant-poaching statistics are lacking. “Slow political processes and corruption within local security and conservation institutes are major obstacles to quickly implement effective solutions,” he said Appeals courts considers shark fin ban Obama's staff backs challenge to California law Bob Egelko Published 5:10 pm, Wednesday, August 14, 2013 With support from the Obama administration, organizations of Chinese American businesses and suppliers of shark fins asked a federal appeals court Wednesday to halt enforcement of a California law banning the possession and sale of the main ingredient of shark fin soup, a traditional Chinese delicacy. The law was passed in 2011, but the prohibition on selling and serving shark fin soup took effect only last month. It was sponsored by conservation and animal-protection groups whose stated goals are to stop the cutting of fins from live sharks - a practice already banned in federal waters - and to protect consumers from mercury in the fins. But opponents, led by Bay Area Chinese restaurants and their suppliers, argued Wednesday that the law is discriminatory and conflicts with federal management of ocean resources. Chinese Americans are "the only community affected," Joseph Breall, lawyer for the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement, told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He said statements by some legislative supporters of the 2011 measure showed an intent to discriminate. For example, Breall said, one lawmaker observed that "we can't police the seas, but we can police Chinatown." But at least one member of the three-judge panel seemed unpersuaded. Judge Andrew Hurwitz noted that the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, who in a Jan. 2 ruling left the law in effect, found that it was deigned to promote conservation and public health, and there was no evidence of intentional discrimination. "Why isn't that a finding that we have to give deference to?" Hurwitz asked. The case took on a new cast July 22 when the Obama administration, in written arguments to the appeals court, said the California law interferes with the underlying purpose of the federal law - to allow commercial shark fishing to continue while prohibiting the "finning" of live sharks. By banning the sales of fins from sharks that were caught intact in federal waters, the state law "may effectively shut down shark fishing," Justice Department lawyers wrote. Although the federal law doesn't explicitly forbid such state regulation, they argued, it implicitly bars states from interfering with a healthy market for sharks that were legally caught. The National Marine Fisheries Service has proposed a regulation that could limit such laws in California and other states, including New York and Florida, a proposal protested by several dozen members of Congress including Democratic Reps. Jared Huffman of San Rafael and Sam Farr of Monterey. The state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Alexandra Gordon, said the Obama administration's argument was based on speculation that "something bad could happen in the future." "There's no reason to assume that our law will have any more impact on the market for sharks than the federal ban on finning," Gordon told the court. If California can't ban the sale of shark fins because of a possible impact on the fishery market, "states could never regulate the sale of wildlife parts," like ivory from elephants, said attorney Ralph Henry, whose clients include the Humane Society of the United States and the Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance. He said the latter organization represents a substantial segment of Chinese Americans who support the California law.

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2013/08/pipeline-incidents-since-1986.html

This video will supposedly be removed soon, so you should watch it soon. http://youtu.be/AdlVH1IjQu4