Sunday, June 30, 2013

Obamacare Ruling: Religious Employers Must Provide Birth Control Coverage

Friday, 28 Jun 2013 06:03 PM
By Todd Beamon

The White House ruled Friday that employees of religious-affiliated, nonprofit institutions would receive insurance coverage for birth control under Obamacare, ensuring more legal challenges to the rule.

"[Friday's] announcement reinforces our commitment to respect the concerns of houses of worship and other nonprofit religious organizations that object to contraceptive coverage, while helping to ensure that women get the care they need, regardless of where they work," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Early last year, the Obama administration said that universities, hospitals, and other employers with a religious affiliation could avoid paying directly for contraceptives. 

Under that Obamacare arrangement, insurance companies would instead provide coverage and pay for it.

The rule requires an institution's health insurer or third-party insurance administrator to notify employees about birth control benefits and provide beneficiaries with direct payments that cover the cost of contraceptive services.

The announcement by Sebelius puts into effect a requirement that has been beset by more than a year of talks between administration officials and religious employers.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other denominations oppose contraception on religious grounds and have protested against the requirement, along with conservatives.

"We have received and started to review the 110-page final rule," New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the conference’s president, said in a statement. "It will require more careful analysis. We will provide a fuller statement when that analysis is complete."

While the rule took effect on Jan. 1, the White House gave nonprofit employers five more months to adjust to the new regulations by having them apply to plans beginning on or after Jan. 1 of this year.

Other employers have been required to make contraceptive coverage available to their workers since last August.

Meanwhile, women's advocates applauded the decision as a milestone that could have profound impact on the education and economic opportunities of women, including college students.

"Birth control is basic healthcare for women, and this policy treats it like any other kind of preventive care," said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Roberts.

Opponents say the policy, part of President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, violates religious tenets of both nonprofit and for-profit employers, particularly coverage for the morning-after pill to stop pregnancy and other types of contraceptives, which they view as tantamount to abortion.

Employers have had legal successes, raising speculation that the lawfulness of the rule may eventually be tested by the Supreme Court.

Religious organizations and businesses have filed more than 60 lawsuits against the requirement — and the courts have granted nearly 20 private businesses temporary relief from the law while their cases proceed in court.

Earlier this month, a federal judge in Pennsylvania granted the same relief to a religiously affiliated nonprofit for the first time in the case of Geneva College, which was established by the Reform Presbyterian Church.

The Friday ruling came a day after a federal appeals court in Denver ruled that Hobby Lobby, the family-owned arts and crafts chain, may be exempt from offering contraceptive benefits to its 13,000 full-time workers.

Hobby Lobby's lawyer, Kyle Duncan, of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said his organization filed an emergency request late on Thursday asking a federal district court to take immediate action on the company's request for an exemption from the mandate.

The retailer, based in Jensen Beach, Fla., was excused by a federal judge on Friday from paying up to $1.3 million a day in fines for not providing coverage.

Reuters contributed to this report.


I do believe in birth control.  After all, what's worse:  Bringing unwanted children into the world, or birth control?  However I have to agree with the religious organizations who are against this on spiritual grounds. Even though I'm an agnostic I have read the Bible and attended Catholic Schools as a child.  The Church is quite clear on this subject.  Having sex is strictly for the purposes of procreation (as unrealistic as that is).  If sex is for having children only, then birth control is unnecessary.   It's their religion, and requiring them to pay for birth control is against their religion and a violation of church and state.

Since I grew up Catholic, I'm going stick with that church in this commentary.  Willfully disobeying church doctrine regarding birth control is grounds for ex-communication.  And seeing as they will have to give access to birth control to their employees, then the employer - the Church - will find out.   Ladies, right or wrong the church says no birth control.  

As one of my teachers once said to me while I was in Catholic School, "The Pope sets Church Doctrine as he sees fit and he doesn't have to explain his actions to anybody but God Himself."

If any Catholic women who are Church employees defy this ban, they could very well find themselves ex-communicated.  Don't say it won't happen.   Pope Francis is very upset about this situation, as are other Church leaders.  If they are forced to provide access to birth control for their female employees, the ones who are Catholic (you don't have to be Catholic to be a Church employee) could very well find themselves ex-communicated.  After that humiliation - which is within the legal rights of the Church - they may be too embarrassed to keep their jobs and may resign.

So ladies, if you are Catholic and a Church employee you had better think twice before asking for birth control from your employer.  You may get more than you bargained for.

Dan 88!

Saturday, June 29, 2013

GOP Senators Predict Quick Death for Senate Immigration Bill in House

Image: GOP Senators Predict Quick Death for Senate Immigration Bill in House

Thursday, 27 Jun 2013 08:48 PM
By Todd Beamon

Republican reaction was swift and strong Thursday to the Senate's passing of sweeping immigration reform legislation, with many senators predicting the measure will fail in the House of Representatives.

"Sponsors of this legislation, despite the array of financial, establishment, and special-interest support, failed to hit their target of 70 votes," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who has long railed against the bill. "The more people learned about the bill, the more uneasy they became.

"Failure to reach 70 votes is significant, and ensures the House has plenty of space to chart an opposite course and reject this fatally flawed proposal," Sessions said. "It is a broken promise, 1,200 pages long."

"This is a bill led by Democrats," Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul declared on Fox News. "There will be a bill proposed for immigration reform led by Republicans in the House, and I'm hoping that's something that I can get behind."

The Senate voted 68-32 — with the backing of 14 Republicans — to approve the reform legislation introduced by the bipartisan Gang of Eight senators in April. The group includes Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Marco Rubio of Florida, both of whom voted in favor of the reform measure.

Democrats in the group include Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The legislation calls for increased border security, and requires illegal immigrants to pass criminal background checks, pay fines, learn English, and pay taxes before getting in line for citizenship, among other reforms.

It also included $46 billion in enhanced border-security measures, including the doubling of U.S. Border Patrol agents to 40,000 and the increased use of surveillance technology along the border. This would include unmanned drones, cameras, and ground sensors.

The bill also would double the amount of fencing along the Mexico border to 700 miles. About 40 miles of fencing currently lines the border.

The Senate vote capped three weeks of contentious debate, with Republicans charging the legislation was amnesty for 11 million-plus illegal immigrants, that it did little to strengthen the nation's borders, and that the Democratic leadership was rushing such complex legislation into law.

In the House, Speaker John Boehner said on Thursday that the lower chamber was not going to take up the Senate bill.

"I think I made it clear that if we're going to do this the right way, there ought to be a majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans in favor of it," the Ohio Republican said, ABC News reports.

Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana agreed.

"This has no momentum at all in the House," he said of the Senate legislation.

Meanwhile, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio charged that the bill did little to improve the nation's E-Verify system, which allows employers to confirm an immigrant's legal status.

Portman said a stronger E-Verify system would block at least 40 percent of illegal immigrants from passing a job background check. "Implementing an effective E-Verify system is the most critical element in making immigration reform work," he said.

"The legislation the Senate voted on is not a real fix because it does not include the new enforcement measures needed as part of a comprehensive package," Portman added.

He said the legislation would essentially legalize millions of illegal immigrants — but without adequate "border and workplace enforcement to curtail future illegal immigration." 

Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said any reform legislation needs provisions to "reduce the wait-time and simplify the process for those entering the country legally.

"Unfortunately, instead of proving to the American public that Congress is serious about border security and enforcing the laws already on the books, the final Senate bill gives weak promises on border security, leaving many aspects of implementation to the discretion of the Homeland Security Secretary," Thune said.

"Simply put, the Senate immigration bill is legalization first and empty promises of border security second," he added.

And Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who also has consistently spoken out against the bill, said the vote reflected a "fatally flawed" process.

"It was written behind closed doors with special interests," Cruz said. "In the Judiciary Committee, the Gang of Eight and Democrats blocked all substantive amendments because of a previously cooked deal — and on the Senate floor, the majority blocked any attempts to fix the bill."

Cruz also attacked a provision that created a tax penalty of nearly $5,000 for employers who hired U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. But the penalty does not apply to those in Registered Provisional Immigrant status, which would be created to adjust the status of illegals to legal status.

"That is indefensible," Cruz charged. "I filed an amendment to fix this defect, but I was blocked by Senate Democrats from receiving a vote on that solution.

"Sadly, this bill won't fix the problem with our immigration system; it will only encourage more illegal immigration and human suffering."


Like I said yesterday, "RIP AMNESTY."

As Senator Cruz - a Mestizo - said, "Sadly, this bill won't fix the problem with our immigration system; it will only encourage more illegal immigration and human suffering."  I don't trust him, but I agree with him.

If an amnesty is passed it will only encourage further illegal immigration because they will think they can get amnesty too.  Besides, no one - whatever their motives - should be allowed to benefit from their own illegal actions.  Border jumping is illegal.  Their reasons for doing it are irrelevant.

Short of a miracle, the Amnesty Bill is dead.

Dan 88!

Friday, June 28, 2013

Amnesty Bill Passes The Senate

Of course it passed.  I would have been surprised if it didn't.  It is expected to fail in Congress, so let's not give up hope yet.  It's not that the Congress is on the side of the People.  They are on their own side.  The Judeo-Capitalists have a greater hold over Congress than the Senate.  Most of Congress represents the 1%.  
The Senate are not for us either.  They have their own reasons for passing this bill which is to kiss the ass of as many Mestizos as possible.

Neither reason is for the benefit of the White worker.   However sometime you have to take the lesser of two evils.  When it comes to this bill, I want it to fail because we don't need millions of new legal workers competing for our jobs.  Also, any way you slice it, illegals are just that - illegals.  The very fact that they entered this country illegally makes them criminals.  Their reasons for doing it or the fact that they have been law-abiding inhabitants (even calling them residents conveys a tone of legality) is irrelevant.  The only thing that is relevant is that they came here illegally.  That alone has earned them a free trip back home.

Like I often say:  It's the principle that counts.  Under no circumstances should they be allowed to benefit from their illegal action regardless of what their motives were.  A crime is a crime, and border jumping is a crime.

So let's not be too worried about this.  The Amnesty bill will die in the House.  Unfortunately I'm also certain it will not rest in peace.  It will rise again.  Next time it's supporters may get lucky and it will pass.  That's why it is more important than ever to not give up opposing this bill which is detrimental to all White workers - no, not just White workers but ALL American workers.  And to make it worse, amnesty is a slap in the face to all immigrants who came here the legal way.  

Hey all you illegals - no cuts.  Get to the back of the line!

Addendum To Yesterday's Post:  I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not approve of Gay marriage, nor am I happy about it.  I think it's disgusting.  But there is something we can do about it.  The Supreme Court did not rule that banning Gay marriage was unconstitutional, they just repealed the Defense Of Marriage Act, and that California's Prop. 8 which defined marriage as between a man and a woman was worded improperly and therefore unconstitutional.  At this time states can still refuse to legalize Gay marriage.  If you live in a state where it is not yet legal, through grassroots activism you can try and keep it illegal.  If you live in a state where it is legal like California, you can work towards making it illegal once again.  Hopefully the next time we try it here in California we'll get it phrased properly.

Dan 88!

Thursday, June 27, 2013

The Big News?

Most of the NS/WN community are really upset about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling which struck down the Defense Of Marriage Act and has either made Gay marriage legal, or opened the way for it to be legal in all 50 states.  Within five years - probably less - Gay marriage will be legal nationwide.  

We have to face it. Times have changed - as they always do - and we have to accept it.  Let's get real. There are more important things for us to worry about than whether a couple of homos can say the "I Do's" or not. Personally I don't care one way or the other.  All I ask from the Gays is don't invite me to your wedding, don't expect a gift from me, don't expect any congratulations, and keep it out of my face as much as is possible.

Homosexuality has been around as long as Man has been around.  Many cultures accepted it as normal. Many tried to eradicate it.  All who have tried to eliminate it have failed.  At best all we can hope to achieve is to keep it in the closet.  Folks, Gays must learn to stop thinking of their own individual needs and do what's best for society as a whole.  Now enough said on that subject.

The second ruling had the same people whining that were cheering over the first ruling ironically enough. That is the one about the Voting Acts Rights.  Those whiny liberals say that this ruling will deny non-Whites their voting rights.  How may I ask will this be done?  The main issue at stake is whether or not states can require voters to provide a photo ID instead of a Social Security card or birth certificate.  

Every adult has a driver's license right?   Well not everyone.  Suspended licenses are not considered valid ID's, and there are many people who are not fit to drive such as certain handicapped people like the blind and quadriplegics.  There are also weirdos who simply do not drive for one reason or another.  I'm sorry if that last remark was offensive, but I can see no reason why someone who is fit and eligible to drive does not have a license.  You don't even need to own a car to have a license.  What possible excuse is there not to?

Every state offers an official state ID card issued through their Motor Vehicle Department.  In California it costs $25 I think.  By allowing a photo ID law to be passed is discriminatory because some people can't afford an ID which is mostly non-Whites?  Horse manure.  No one except the homeless are that poor, and the homeless can't vote because you must have a "fixed domicile" to register.  Skip buying one carton of cigarettes or a couple of 12 packs and you can get the money.

In this day and age you can't get along without photo ID.  You can't even cash a check anymore without one, so I refuse to believe that there are a significant number of eligible voters who don't have valid photo ID. What these liberals are complaining about is they think it's another way of attacking Mestizos.  Most illegal aliens are Latinos.  I don't mean to be offensive but if the shoe fits.   

Just as Muslims need to accept the fact that since most terrorists are Muslims, they are going to be under greater scrutiny by DHS than are non-Muslims, Mestizos have to accept that as most illegals are Latinos, they will be under greater scrutiny by ICE than the rest of us.

Photo ID laws are not an attempt to harass Latino-Americans.  Get off the "Whitey's trying to keep us down" crap.  What we're trying to do is to keep illegal aliens from illegally voting - and there is ample proof that some of them have fraudulently voted before.  It's  our fault that there are so many illegals because we have allowed the situation to get this bad.  But it isn't our fault that those who have entered America illegally happen to be Mestizos.  If Latino-Americans don't like being singled out I suggest they get on the illegal's cases and start reporting them to ICE and when they go to Mexico to visit family tell those who are still there not to jump the border.  Mestizo non-citizens are more likely to listen to Mexican-Americans than Whitey anyway.

So as to yesterday's rulings, I don't see the defeat of DOMA as a crushing defeat for NS/WN, but the Voting Acts ruling IS a positive thing.  Like I said, I don't really care one way or another if Gays can marry and it doesn't effect me at all.  If the ruling on Voting Rights makes life a little harder in any way for illegals then I say it's a good thing.

Now that that's said and done we have more important work to do so let's get at it.

Dan 88! 

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Obama A Dictator? Naw!

Dan 88!

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Federal Employees Paid to Work for Unions

By Newsmax

More than 250 employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs are being paid to work for government employee unions rather than veterans — even though the VA has a backlog of nearly 1 million unprocessed benefit claims.
These employees are on "official time," defined as "paid time off from assigned Government duties to represent a union or its bargaining unit employees," according to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Their salaries range from $26,420 to the $131,849 being paid to a nurse in San Francisco who represents the Nation Federation of Federal Employees.
Government workers on "official time" have office space at the agency that employs them, are paid for full-time work, and receive medical insurance and other fringe benefits, even though many are not required to show up at the agency, reports Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
The VA spent $42.5 million on official time in 2011, including salaries and benefits.
Republican Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Rob Portman of Ohio sent a letter to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki saying: "Documents show that your department recently employed at least 85 nurses, some with six-figure salaries, who were in 100 percent official time status. At the same time, the department is recruiting more people to fill open nursing positions."
But official time is not limited to the VA. The OPM reported that the federal government paid more than $156 million to workers on official time in 2011, up from $139 million in 2010.
Sen. Coburn told Furchtgott-Roth: "It is unacceptable for employees to spend 100 percent of their time away from the job taxpayers pay them to do."
The vast majority of campaign contributions from government worker unions go to Democrats, Furchtgott-Roth observed in an article for Real Clear Markets.
Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia has introduced a bill to limit official time, and in the Senate, Kentucky's Rand Paul has a bill that would completely eliminate it.
In case you didn't get that, 250 employees of the Department of Veteran Affairs are being paid by the VA to work in union jobs - of which they are being paid by them also.
I've heard of the government doing a lot of weird things, but this is new to me.  Why would they be doing this?  The only answer I can come up with is highly speculative.  Perhaps the government is paying them to break the unions.  Would the government deliberately try to destroy unions?  You bet your sweet bippy they would.  And if that's the reason, it's their Judeo-Capitalist puppet masters who are behind it all.
It's also possible that the government is trying to keep as many regular people as possible OUT of union jobs to help keep their wages low to better "keep us in our place".
Anyone else have any ideas why this is happening?
Even though it's just speculation, it is more evidence of just how corrupt the government is.  It's yet another reason why it has to be ended.  ZOG doesn't own us completely - not yet.  If it did, then the ANP would not exist.  But the time is rapidly coming where they will own us lock, stock, and barrel.  $upport the ANP.  If not, don't be surprised if we don't all have a brand on our asses reading, "PROPERTY OF U.S. GOVERNMENT".
Dan 88!

Monday, June 24, 2013

Los Angeles Bans Plastic Bags, Charges for Paper

By Newsmax

The Los Angeles City Council has approved a bill that not only bans single-use plastic bags in food stores but also imposes a 10-cent charge for each paper bag.
And it's a move that could have unexpected, even dangerous side effects.
The ban on plastic in stores that sell perishable foods would take effect in January for large stores and in July 2014 for smaller stores.
"We've seen plastic bags clogging our gutters, polluting our rivers and piling up on our beaches," Council Member Jose Huizar said in a statement.
"The time for the City of Los Angeles to take action to protect our environment is now."
Nearly 2 billion single-use plastic bags are distributed in Los Angeles annually, CBS News Los Angeles reported.
Los Angeles is the largest U.S. city to ban plastic bags.
But many shoppers will choose to rely on reusable grocery bags to avoid the 10-cent charge for a paper bag. And that could lead to an increase in food borne illnesses, emergency room visits, and even deaths, researchers say.
As the Insider Report disclosed in January, the danger comes because reusable bags are breeding grounds for E. coli and other harmful bacteria.
"If individuals fail to clean their reusable bags, these bacteria may lead to contamination of the food transported in the bags," according to a report from Jonathan Klick, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, and Joshua D. Wright, a professor at the George Mason University School of Law and Department of Economics.
"Such contamination has the potential to lead to health problems and even death."
Tests of randomly selected reusable grocery bags found coliform bacteria in more than half of them, the Insider Report noted.
Yet the ban may not have a major impact on litter in Los Angeles. An audit in San Francisco, which banned the bags in 2007, showed that they account for less than 3 percent of the city's litter.
Many plastic bags are recycled, or used as trash liners or doggie litter bags.
Am I in favour of this?  Yes and no.  Unfortunately so many people are just plain pigs.  I myself am sick of finding empty grocery bags in my front yard.  If people would stop simply throwing them away there would be no need for such a ban.  Like the story said, I reuse my plastic bags as trash bags.  So should everyone.  It makes no sense.  People toss their plastic grocery bags rather than reuse them as trash bags, yet spend perfectly good money on plastic trash bags.  Stupid waste.
I am against a charge for paper bags.  Groceries are expensive enough already.  The last thing we need is an extra dollar or two tacked on at the end.
There are reusable bags, but they should be washed every time they are used unless they were used for canned stuff.  Even bags used for non-food items like soap or Ajax cleanser.  What if some of that poison got on your bag and  the next time that bag had food in it and the poison contaminated your food?  But people are lazy.  They won't want to be bothered washing them after every use.  "Aw it'll be alright.  Nothing bad is going to happen.  No need to launder them every time."  Yeah, nothing will happen - until it does.
Comrades if your community has not yet banned one-use plastic bags, you can help prevent them from doing so by not giving them a reason.  Take care of these bags properly.  Either throw them away in a trash can, or do the smart thing and reuse them. Never just toss it on the ground.  Remember we only have one planet.  Ruin it and we not only mess things up for ourselves, but for our children and their children as well. Do what's responsible, not what's convenient.
Dan 88! 

Sunday, June 23, 2013

It Seems I Made A Boo-Boo!

Comrades, I recently found out that there was no way for people to specify what size they wanted if they wanted to order a shirt or jacket from The Nazi Store.  My bad.  The situation has now been corrected so if you were thinking of ordering a shirt or hoodie or zipper sweat then you can do it right.  In my own defense it was ignorance, not incompetence.  It took me three hours, but it should be okay now.

Also, it's now June 23.  Summer officially began last Thursday.  That means that the days started getting shorter last Friday.  Before you know it Daylight Savings time will be over and the cold weather will be setting in.  Let's make the most of the long, warm days and get some literature out.

Bearing in mind that it is June 23, it also means we have only one week left in the month.  If you haven't gotten those pledges in the mail for June yet, please do so asap.  I'd hate to see you dropped from the list.  If you are having trouble this month, an email to HQ explaining what's up could keep your name on that list. Even $1 helps, and shows your commitment to the ANP and the Cause.

Well that's it for now.  I spent three hours correcting that issue on The Nazi Store and I have one heck of a tension headache because of it.  Have a great Sunday!

Dan 88! 

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Sanctuary Cities

Below is a list of California cities that are official "sanctuary" cities for illegal aliens.  It's no surprise to me that San Bernardino is on that list.  If you ever came here it would take you about 30 seconds to realize it as here the Mestizos outnumber Whites, Blacks, and Asians combined.  Of course not all Latinos are illegals, but large Latino populations attract illegals because it lets them blend in better.  I'm sure even if an illegal Mestizo could afford to live in an upscale White neighborhood he wouldn't want to as he would stick out like a sore thumb.

Anyway, if you are curious to see what cities in your state are official sanctuary cities you can click on the link below.

I have bad, but probably not surprising news for our chairman.  Detroit is on the list for Michigan.

Dan 88!


California: Bell Gardens
California: City of Commerce
California: City of Industry
California: Cypress
California: Davis
California: Downey
California: Fresno
(Police Dept. General Order - July 2003):
Prohibits police officers from calling, collaborating, denouncing, or transporting undocumented immigrants to the INS or Office of Border Patrol when such undocumented immigrants have been detained for a minor infraction.
California: Lakewood
California: Long Beach
California: Los Angeles
(Special Order 40 - November 1979 [currently being revised]):
Prohibits Police Department from initiating police action with the objective of discovering the immigration status of a person and from enforcing immigration law. Establishes equal enforcement of the law and service to the public, regardless of immigration status.
California: Lynnwood
California: Maywood
California: Montebello
California: National City
California: Norwalk
California: Oakland
California: Paramount
California: Pico Rivera
California: San Bernardino
California: San Diego --
(Police Dept. Procedure):
States that police is to not look for violations of immigration law and prohibits INS involvement with undocumented persons when they are material witnesses of crime, have family disturbances, or minor traffic offenses or when they seek medical treatment.
California: Santa Clara County
California: Santa Cruz
California: San Francisco
(Ordinance [in administrative code CH. 12H] [1989 revised in 1993])
California: San Jose
Documented June 13, 2007 by Congressional Research Service*
California: Santa Maria
California: San Rafael
California: Sonoma County
Documented August 14, 2006 by Congressional Research Service 
California: South Gate
California: Vernon
California: Watsonville
Documented May 12, 2007 by Santa Cruz Sentinel
California: Wilmington

Friday, June 21, 2013

Outrage Over Feral Kitten Shootings

 by  and 

NORTH RIDGEVILLE, Ohio– Police are defending the shooting of feral kittens outside of a residence on Vista Lake Way.
In a press release, North Ridgeville Police Chief Mike Freeman said a resident contacted them Monday on the department’s Facebook page, saying a family of cats made a home in their wood pile. The resident asked if a humane officer could pick up the cats.
The chief said humane officer, Barry Accorti, arrived on the scene and was shown the wood pile where the feral cats were located. The wood piles were about ten feet from the home.
The homeowner told the officer that the feral cats were causing flea problems within the residence, along with a foul odor. They were also leaving deceased wildlife in her yard.
The homeowner was advised that due to her safety concerns, the officer would assist her, but the cats would have to be euthanized.
The chief said the homeowner agreed. The humane officer located the kittens within the wood pile and they were euthanized and taken away.  The homeowners two little girls were sent inside the house, but when one of them asked if the kittens would be alright, Accorti told them the shelter was full and they'd have to go to kitty heaven.
During a follow-up interview with the homeowner, she stated she knew the feral cats were going to be euthanized, but did not expect it to happen on her property.
She said she felt overwhelmed because her children were inside the home and heard the gunshots. She urged better communication in the future.  

When the children heard the gunshots they began screaming.  They both knew that the kittens had been killed.  Their mother fears they may have suffered psychological trauma because of this.
In the press release, Chief Freeman said the North Ridgeville Police Department recognizes the concerns of those who believe feral cats should not be killed, but also acknowledges other research that recognizes the risks associated with the animals and the need to manage feral cats.
The press release also stated that research and other animal organizations accept shooting as an acceptable means of euthanasia.
The chief said that, after visiting the scene; talking with Accorti, who has 30+ years of law enforcement experience; and re-interviewing the homeowner, he has decided Accorti’s actions were appropriate. Chief Freeman has decided not to impose any disciplinary measures. The chief said he will talk with the human officers about improving communications with the public.
Chief Freeman said the department is there to help those who seek their assistance. He also said the agency does not condone or allow the indiscriminate killing of animals, but will continue to assist residents when there is a safety or nuisance condition.
In the meantime, a complaint has been filed with the Ohio SPCA.
The Elyria Friendship APL, who has jurisdiction over Lorain County, is also investigating the incident.
“We will conduct an investigation to see if there was wrongdoing at all. That’s kind of where we come into play. The investigation would entail whether or not the animals suffered at all as a result of the animal control officer’s actions; that’s actually what we are investigating at this point to see,” said Greg Willey, the director of the APL.
The Friendship APL said they must work with the SPCA in the preliminary investigation.
If they find officer Accorti guilty of any wrongdoing, he could face several charges of animal cruelty, which are misdemeanors.


As most of you know, Hitler was an animal lover.  You can just imagine how he would have reacted to this detestable incident.

Even if Accorti had just taken the kittens away, to tell two little girls that the kittens are going to kitty heaven shows a complete lack of compassion and sensitivity.  A person like that has no business working with animals.

This is just another example of the kind of scum that this rotten system puts into positions of authority.  As I explained in a recent post, animal control is also a position of "special trust".  As far as I'm concerned Accorti betrayed that trust both in his cruelty to those helpless kittens, and his insensitivity to those little girls who may have been scarred for life because of this.

Dan 88!

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Mueller Admits FBI Uses Drones in Domestic Surveillance

Wednesday, 19 Jun 2013 01:05 PM

The FBI uses drones in domestic surveillance operations in a “very, very minimal way,” Director Robert Mueller said.

Mueller, in Senate testimony today, acknowledged for the first time that the Federal Bureau of Investigation uses “very few” drones in a limited capacity during its investigations.

“It’s very seldom used and generally used in a particular incident when you need the capability,” Mueller said when asked about the bureau’s use of pilotless aircraft with surveillance capabilities. “It is very narrowly focused on particularized cases and particularized needs.”

Lawmakers, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, and civil liberties groups have raised concerns about the impact on privacy of drones used by federal law enforcement agencies. The Homeland Security Department regularly deploys drones to oversee the southern border.

Mueller said the FBI is in “the initial stages” of formulating privacy guidelines related to its use of drones.

“There are a number of issues related to drones that will need to be debated in the future,” Mueller said. “It’s still in its nascent stages, this debate.”


Assuming he is telling the truth (and when it comes to the government I never assume that), Director Mueller said the FBI does very little domestic spying - for now.  If this practice is allowed to continue, it will surely escalate until we can never be certain when and where we are being monitored.  Of course they do not have the ability to monitor everybody all the time, but it would be like the view screens in the book "1984".  As well as broadcast TV shows, they could watch YOU.  They couldn't watch everybody all the time, but it was like those signs you see sometimes on people's houses "THIS HOUSE GUARDED BY KILLER DOG THREE DAYS A WEEK -YOU GUESS WHICH THREE DAYS".

As it is now there is almost no place we can go without being monitored.  Video cameras are practically everywhere:  At supermarkets, malls, banks, gas stations - you name it there's a camera.  It's all for "our protection".  Well I don't need that kind of protection thank you.

There is a price to pay for living in a free and open society - such as we USED to have.  That price is there is a higher risk of personal danger.  In a police state you are safer - from ordinary crime at least - but you have far less privacy and freedom.

You have to decide.  Do you want to be free and accept a lesser amount of personal safety, or be safe and live under the watchful eye of Big Brother?  As for me, I'd rather be free.

Dan 88!

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Woman sexually assaulted in Nevada courtroom

By Jen Hayden

Monica Contreras went to family court with her 2-year-old daughter in August 2011. She was in the courtroom only a few minutes on a routine divorce case. Her husband filed for a Temporary Restraining Order against her during their divorce. He never showed up in court so the order was denied.
 According to internal court documents, as Contreras was leaving, family court marshal Ron Fox ordered her into a waiting room for an unexplained drug search.
Contreras said Fox touched her buttocks, breast, and ordered her to lift up her shirt. A later internal investigation by Clark County courts validated her claims. Contreras went back into the same courtroom and told hearing master Patricia Donninger that her requests to have a female marshal handle the search were ignored.
Hearing master Patricia Donninger ignored her pleas and looked away as she was arrested by the very same marshal. The entire incident was caught on camera:

The marshall has since been fired, but the investigation is expanding:
Even though Fox was fired, sources tell the I-Team, Clark County courts are widening their investigation into why this incident, and a growing number of assault allegations, were never reported by family court management to internal affairs.
Fox maintains his innocence and is suing Clark County for wrongful termination. His attorney declined an on-camera interview but claims the marshal's arrest was legal because nobody in the courtroom tried to stop him.

I realize the victim is a Mestizo, but that's not the point.  The point is that this rotten system would put sleaze balls like Fox in a position of authority in the first place.  If the victim had given in and made a retraction, no one outside of that court might have even heard about this.

Also, the judge - who is White - allowed this to happen.  She had the authority to put a stop to it, but not only did she fail to do so, she actually turned away and played with the little girl while her mother was being cuffed.

It's bad enough for a male judge to do this, but even worse when a woman does it.  It's just reprehensible.  The next time it may be one of OUR women - and even worse - the perp may be a non-White.  That would be unthinkable.  But it could - and has happened.

Any system that would allow this to happen doesn't deserve to exist.  Help us put a stop to things like this.  $upport the ANP in any way you can.  Ladies, it could happen to you.  Gentlemen, your wife or GF could be next!

Dan 88!   

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

I thought you might be interested in knowing how your senators voted on whether to move the amnesty bill to the senate floor or not.  No surprise that both California senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein (both Jews) voted yes.  Find out how your senators voted.  It won't do any good, but it still might be interesting to find out.  

This doesn't mean they passed the bill.  It means they voted to send it to the floor for arguments for and against, and THEN they vote on it.

Dan 88!

Elected Officials Who...
  • Voted on the Motion to Invoke Cloture to Begin Floor Debate on S.744
    Updated Wednesday, June 12, 2013, 3:30 PM EDT
June 11, 2013 -- Voted on the Motion to Invoke Cloture to Begin Floor Debate on S.744
A "Yes" vote on the motion supported moving the amnesty bill to the Senate floor.
A "No" vote on the motion was against moving the amnesty bill to the Senate floor.
Voted YES Count: 82
Voted NO Count: 15

  • Alexander (R-TN)
  • Ayotte (R-NH)
  • Baldwin (D-WI)
  • Baucus (D-MT)
  • Begich (D-AK)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Blumenthal (D-CT)
  • Blunt (R-MO)
  • Boxer (D-CA)
  • Brown (D-OH)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Cantwell (D-WA)
  • Cardin (D-MD)
  • Carper (D-DE)
  • Casey (D-PA)
  • Chambliss (R-GA)
  • Chiesa (R-NJ)
  • Coats (R-IN)
  • Cochran (R-MS)
  • Collins (R-ME)
  • Coons (D-DE)
  • Corker (R-TN)
  • Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Cowan (D-MA)
  • Donnelly (D-IN)
  • Durbin (D-IL)
  • Feinstein (D-CA)
  • Fischer (R-NE)
  • Flake (R-AZ)
  • Franken (D-MN)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Graham (R-SC)
  • Hagan (D-NC)
  • Harkin (D-IA)
  • Hatch (R-UT)
  • Heinrich (D-NM)
  • Heitkamp (D-ND)
  • Heller (R-NV)
  • Hirono (D-HI)
  • Hoeven (R-ND)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • Johanns (R-NE)
  • Johnson (D-SD)
  • Johnson (R-WI)
  • Kaine (D-VA)
  • King (I-ME)
  • Klobuchar (D-MN)
  • Landrieu (D-LA)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Levin (D-MI)
  • Manchin (D-WV)
  • McCaskill (D-MO)
  • McConnell (R-KY)
  • Menendez (D-NJ)
  • Merkley (D-OR)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Moran (R-KS)
  • Murphy (D-CT)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Nelson (D-FL)
  • Paul (R-KY)
  • Portman (R-OH)
  • Pryor (D-AR)
  • Reed (D-RI)
  • Reid (D-NV)
  • Rockefeller (D-WV)
  • Rubio (R-FL)
  • Sanders (I-VT)
  • Schatz (D-HI)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Shaheen (D-NH)
  • Stabenow (D-MI)
  • Tester (D-MT)
  • Thune (R-SD)
  • Toomey (R-PA)
  • Udall (D-CO)
  • Udall (D-NM)
  • Warner (D-VA)
  • Warren (D-MA)
  • Whitehouse (D-RI)
  • Wicker (R-MS)
  • Wyden (D-OR)
  • Barrasso (R-WY)
  • Boozman (R-AR)
  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • Cruz (R-TX)
  • Enzi (R-WY)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • Inhofe (R-OK)
  • Kirk (R-IL)
  • Lee (R-UT)
  • Risch (R-ID)
  • Roberts (R-KS)
  • Scott (R-SC)
  • Sessions (R-AL)
  • Shelby (R-AL)
  • Vitter (R-LA)

Monday, June 17, 2013

July Will Be Here Soon

Comrades, I spent a good deal of yesterday with my father.  I hope as many of you as possible did the same.  A good dad gives a lot to his kids over the years, and that doesn't always stop when his kids grow up either. I owe my dad a lot and I have no problem giving back what I can.

Anyway, it's now the second half of June.  Perhaps buying a gift for your dad may have interfered with your monthly pledge.  I hope not, but if it did, a little note to HQ telling them this is would be nice.  Even one dollar would be appreciated.  It's skipping your pledge and saying nothing that could get you dropped from our list.

Also we are up to 500 items on The Nazi Store.  The goal is to make it to 1000 eventually.  There is a new category:  Stickers.  They can be acquired for a donation of $5.95.  These are larger stickers, not the small kind.  There are only five at the moment, but more will be coming soon.

I would like to thank everyone who has bought something there since the site when up.  Thank you very much.  I hope you have enjoyed your stuff.  An extra special thanks to those who have bought  several items. Your generosity is appreciated.

Also, we are going to move the new video blog.  It will be at a location where we can upload our videos, instead of linking to Jew Tube where they could be pulled without notice.  It's going to be a pain-in-the-ass, but it will be worth it.  I'll post the new URL when I'm ready.  In the mean time, the old URL is still good.

Well that's about it.  I'll have a better post for tomorrow.

Dan 88!

Sunday, June 16, 2013

It's Father's Day!

Dan 88!

Saturday, June 15, 2013

House Votes to Overturn Obama Administration No-Deportation Policies

During debate on the Department of Homeland Security’s appropriations bill, the House voted cut off funds for implementing Administration policies that shield most illegal aliens from the threat of deportation. The 224-201 vote on an amendment sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) could be a harbinger of the difficulties amnesty proponents face in the coming debate over immigration reform.
Rep. King’s amendment would prevent DHS from implementing a series of memos that set deportation priorities. By assigning certain categories of illegal aliens a low deportation priority, the memos effectively tell ICE agents to ignore their illegal status. One such category is the illegal aliens who qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Should the measure become law, it would clear the way for these illegal aliens to be deported again.
The House admonished other Administration immigration policies, too. In order to comply with sequestration-imposed cost reductions, DHS claimed it had to release thousands of criminal aliens from detention center. Representatives unanimously adopted a measure sponsored by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) that would prevent DHS from releasing further criminal aliens.
The House voted 245-180 in support of an amendment sponsored by Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) that underwrites the continued operation of the 287(g) federal-state partnership, which enables local police to perform certain duties of ICE agents. The Obama Administration had targeted that program for termination.
A 1996 law provides that "[s]tates and localities may not adopt policies, formally or informally, that prohibit employees from communicating with DHS regarding the immigration status of individuals.” But dozens of cities around the country have adopted “sanctuary” policies that limit communications and thereby shield illegal aliens from detection. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), in an attempt to shut these illegal-alien havens, won support for an amendment that would cut off grant funding to cities that maintain sanctuary policies.
Another 1996 law mandated implementation of a full entry-exit system at all ports of entry. But no Administration has ever implemented the exit portion, which is critical for tracking visa overstayers. Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Penn.) succeeded in garnering support for an amendment that prohibits the Secretary of DHS from using funds for “official reception expenses” until the entry-exit system is fully established.
The House also defeated several attempts to undermine immigration enforcement. One such amendment sponsored by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) would have eliminated a requirement for ICE to maintain 34,000 illegal-alien detention beds. If the requirement is jettisoned, the Administration will be empowered to cut bed numbers and thereby reduce the capacity for detaining illegal aliens who might otherwise flee.
Sounds encouraging, but don't be fooled.  This is was not done because the American people want it.  Both the Democrats and the Republicans have less than altruistic reasons for their stance on immigration.   The Democrats are trying to cultivate new party members.  If the amnesty goes through, every single one who benefits from it will most likely become a Democrat once they get their citizenship.  If it fails as the Republicans hope, it means the amount of cheap labor will still be available for the One Percent.  Neither side is acting altruistically.
How can any thinking person watch all this and still believe the government is looking out for our best interests?  The answer is that they don't believe it.  More and more people are beginning to realize that they don't count for squat.  Yet most refuse to act.  But why?  Because they simply aren't ready to do what has to be done.  By that I mean make sacrifices.
In the mobile home park I live in we don't have trash cans that we set out at the curb.  We have two dumpsters.  We have three dumpings a week - including one on Saturday morning.  During the week it's fine, but by Sunday those dumpsters are filled to capacity and beyond because so many people save up there trash for the weekends, rather than getting rid of some of it on the weekdays.  Why?  Here's a familiar whine, "I work weekdays.  When I get home I'm tired.  Do you think I want to have to take down the freaking trash?"  If people don't want to be bothered taking out the trash on a work day, most of them certainly won't want to be bothered doing any activism either.  And of course on the weekends they have to catch up on their chores and there's also the Niggerball games.
They hard fact is these people won't act until they get desperate enough.  On the other hand, if things keep on going the way they have been, hopefully we won't have long to wait.  But by then will it be too late?  As I've said many times before we must act NOW.  The end is closer than you'd like to think.
Dan 88!

Friday, June 14, 2013

Third World Growth — California Style

Numbers USA

The smoggy skies of Sacramento - that's what we have to breath!

You don't have to take a jet to see Third World growth - just take a look around the entire Sacramento region! California, Sacramento County, Placer County and El Dorado County are unfortunately experiencing the same growth rates as many of the world's poorest and most overpopulated countries. Is that what we want to bequeath to future generations?
[This was based on a well-received audience handout recently presented to theLeague of Women Voters of El Dorado County, California on behalf of their Population Study Committee. Other Leagues in the state will be using all or part of this handout for both population and growth management projects.]
The CIA's ( World Fact Book 2001 "Population Growth Rates by Country" was compared to the CA Department of Finance ( data by county "City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change: Jan 2000 - Jan 2001" (note: the CIA includes disputed territories as countries). A "sister country" could only qualify if its rounded-off growth rate was within .1% of the county/state.
The world growth rate is 1.25% and 27 countries (11.6%) had a 3.0% or higher growth rate. If Placer County was indeed a country with its 3.5% growth rate, there would be only eight other "countries" in the world with a higher growth rate: Christmas Island, Eritrea, Gaza Strip, Marshall Islands, Mayotte, Montserrat, Northern Mariana Islands, and Sierra Leone.
The sources of population growth are generally different between California (immigration) and the rest of the world (fertility). No matter what the source of this rapid growth, or where it occurs, these communities will have to struggle with resource depletion, infrastructure strain and other sustainability issues as a result. We must reduce growth because the best conservation and community planning efforts in the world cannot keep pace with exponential growth rates.
Population Growth sisters
California - 1.8 % growth rate: Algeria, Andorra, Bolivia, Egypt, El Salvador, French Polynesia, Ghana, Liberia, Macau, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Zambia
Sacramento Co. - 2.3%: American Samoa, Angola, British Virgin Islands, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Republic of the Congo, Falkland Islands, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Libya, Nepal, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea
Placer Co. - 3.5%: Afghanistan, Kuwait, Northern Mariana Islands, Oman, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Turks and Caicos Islands, West Bank, Yemen
California Meltdown
"The key challenge facing this state for the next century will be growth...the remorseless devouring of landscape is pushing increasing multitudes towards a meltdown of rebellion over quality-of-life".
California historian Kevin Starr, San Jose Mercury, 3/7/00
We are ALREADY Experiencing Severe Multiple and Synergistic Crises
Water -- Energy -- Housing -- Sprawl -- Air Quality -- Biodiversity Loss

By adding the size of a San Francisco every year in population, how do you expect our community quality-of-life to fare in the coming years?
Population Committee Review and Conclusions
Reviewed: data on CA migration, quality-of-life criteria, community assessment studies
  1. California's deteriorating quality-of-life may have started in the 1970s according to one national study which found it ranked 41st in the nation in 1980 and 42nd in 1990 - even before the Great Immigration Boom of the 1990s (larger than the post-WWII Baby Boom). (
  2. El Dorado County's rapid population growth is predominantly from migration (3 times higher than natural increase), presumably from more congested urban areas within the state. International migration is negligible, however, it exerts tremendous social, economic and environmental pressures on sending counties (strong push factor).
  3. Most migration within the state/country is for economic reasons (pull factors) - better job, lower cost of housing, and shorter commute. Non-economic reasons include: air quality, schools, crime and natural amenities (climate, openspace)
  4. Several studies emphasized that population growth by itself does not automatically predict lower quality-of-life, but if resources and infrastructure don't at least keep pace with growth, then quality-of-life is reduced. ("Kid Friendly Cities",
  5. The popular Smart Growth movement has largely failed to live up to promises to curtail sprawl in areas of rapid population growth. Example: Los Angeles County received numerous national awards for Smart Growth innovations between 1970-1990 for increasing density in the core area; however at the same time it paved over almost 300 square miles of peripheral openspace (
  6. Population questions are now starting to be included in community assessments surveys. Example: the regional San Fernando Valley model planning program found residents ranked population issues as the fifth highest concern with regards to quality-of-life there (note that all other ranked criteria can be directly related to population issues too). (
  7. Organizations have formed to assist communities to find ways to reduce costly population growth while fostering economic growth: Rocky Mountain Institute ( and Alternatives to Growth (
Meltdown Policy Choices
Can we afford to overlook ANY opportunities in policy development???
  1. Automatic reaction: must increase resource supply (more schools, housing, power plants, dams, roads, etc.)
  2. Emerging paradigm: conservation, new technologies and better planning (recycling, more efficiency, solar/wind power, Smart Growth, etc.)
  3. Neglected population "orphan": return immigration to traditional levels, national population plan in place to support, not undermine, community planning (systems approach)
Fast Facts on U.S./CA Population
Almost 60% of all pregnancies in the US are unintended. Better access to family planning, including contraception, is necessary so that women can choose the size of their families and delay pregnancy.
The teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is twice that of any other industrialized nation and most of these are unintended.
85% of health insurance plans cover abortions and sterilizations, but only 15% of these cover all 5 FDA-approved reversible methods of contraception. The cost of providing coverage for contraceptive drugs is $1.25 per month per employee, although the out-of-pocket expense to an uncovered employee is $25- $50 a month.
92% of California's population growth during the past decade was due to mass immigration (immigrants plus births to immigrants here). This state receives 40% of all immigrants to the U.S.
The U.S. now accepts over 1 million legal immigrants per year which is almost 5 times its traditional level. Illegal immigration is soaring to almost 800,000 per year.
In just fifty years the U.S. population will be almost a half billion (almost double) with 90 percent due to mass immigration since 1970.
The Democratic Challenge:
How can we establish an objective, constructive and inclusive national dialogue on population stabilization to prevent the U.S. from becoming an economic and environmental Third World country?
The pro-immigration people believe that everyone in the world should have the right to immigrate here if they want to. Why?  Mass immigration means less prosperity for those who are already here.  Why should we be REQUIRED to share our prosperity?  Besides, in case they haven't taken a good look around, we aren't so prosperous anymore.  One percent of the population now controls 90% of the wealth.  The numbers of poor are growing, and the middle class - who were once the backbone of this country are disappearing.  For the first time in the history of the United States, today's children can look forward to a lower standard of living than their parents.
This is not entirely the fault of immigration - but it certainly isn't helping matters.  The harsh truth is that under today's economic situation, America needs to put up a "No Vacancy" sign on the Statue Of Liberty.
I realize that except for the Native Americans, we are all descended from immigrants.  But that doesn't mean we "owe it" to today's immigrants to give them a chance at a "better life".  Immigration is like what used to be called "Festival Seating" at rock concerts.  Everybody paid the same price for a ticket with no assigned seat. Once you got through the gates the better seats were "first-come-first-served" and when they were gone, you were SOL if you didn't get one close to the stage.
The opportunities our ancestors came here for are gone.  It's a bitter fact, but today's immigrants are simply SOL.  There aren't enough jobs and other financial opportunities for those who are already here.  To be required to share what's left with these newcomers is simply not fair to us.  It's like going to a sale at a department store.  Their ads says "52 inch HD TVs - ONLY $200.  LIMITED STOCK".  If you get there too late and they are all gone, you can't cry "No fair!  I have a right to one of those TV's!"  No you don't.  You were a latecomer.  They are all gone so you're SOL.  It's the same for today's immigrants.  The opportunities are all gone and they too are simply SOL.
Dan 88!