Once Again Those Wishing to Drive Religion Underground Attack

No Eden: Atheist group takes on religious-themed public garden

DES MOINES, Iowa – A park planned in Sioux City is getting national attention.

The Shepherd’s Garden, a Christian-themed park, was recently was awarded $140,000 from the state through a Vision Iowa grant. It’s meant to “assist projects that will provide recreational, cultural, entertainment and educational attractions.” The money would go towards building and planting green spaces in the park, but not for any religious symbols.

But the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation is fighting the funding, saying using public money to promote Christian ideals violates the First Amendment of the Constitution (No it doesn't. First, the Constitution was written to lay guidelines of what the Federal Government is suppose to do, the Bill of Rights was written to PROTECT the States & the PEOPLE from the Federal Government and  "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT taxing the American people for the park or giving any FEDERAL money to the Shepherd’s Garden Foundation Therefore, how can the FFRF claim that it violates U.S. Constitution. This is STATE money and though a 1947 case dealing with using STATE tax money to aid in busing I feel it hold true here, Justice Black wrote in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. et. Al (1947) that the expenditure of tax funds to pay for the busing of parochial school students does not violate The Establishment Clause, because it does not unduly assist any school, whether public or parochial. Neither does it violate Due Process no more then the concept of using tax funds for the payment of police and fire who are paid from tax funds to protect both public and parochial students...OM). What's more, according to the foundation, the grant would violate Iowa's own constitution, which “prohibits funding of religious spaces.”

Actually the Iowa Constitution says in Article 3 of its Bill of Rights says, "The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry." The question that needs to be asked, Did the General Assembly pass any laws COMPELLING the people of Iowa to pay taxes to build this park? If not, how can it be a violation of the STATES Constitution?...OM

“The whole park’s purpose is religious which means the government can’t be supporting it at all, any part of it,” said FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel.

Seidel penned a letter to Cathy Reece, chairwoman of the Iowa Economic Development Authority, which manages Vision Iowa, calling for the funding to be rescinded.

Cathy Reece, criticizing the government entity for violating the constitutional ban on public sponsorship of religious activity:

"It is difficult to understand how this grant could have been approved. The “join us” section of the brochure — the plea for money — actually quotes the King James bible, Psalm 23 … Crosses decorate the brochure and park. This is openly about space to promote Christianity, not a public space.

Shepherd’s Garden is of course free to construct their Christian green space, but the government cannot support it. This is one of the most egregious grants for a religious purpose FFRF has encountered. Vision Iowa and the Iowa Economic Development Authority must rescind the grant to comply with the Constitution."

The Shepherd’s Garden fundraising brochure quotes Psalm 23 as a guide for the park and invites donors to “create a legacy to the ongoing role the Christian faith has had in shaping the life of this community.” (I wonder if there would be a complaint if it were for a Muslim park...OM)

The garden’s brochure goes on to say, “Shepherd’s Garden is more than a park, it has been conceived and designed to be a visible reminder that God’s presence is not confined to sacred institutions and buildings, but is very much a part of the public sphere.”

Garrett Smith, a member of the Shepherd’s Garden Foundation, said they were aware this might cause an issue when they applied for the grant.

“We were sensitive to this when we presented it to the board. We weren't trying to hide that this was spiritual and made sure that none of the state money was factored into the budget for the religious symbols,” said Smith.

The park plans to have Bible verses etched into walkway stones, Calvary Crosses in a water fountain and prayer spaces. There would also be “public green spaces,” which is what the Vision Iowa grant would go towards.

Tina Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the Iowa Economic Development Authority, said the board awarding the grant was aware the garden was meant to be a Christian space. But the board only agreed to give money to public green spaces in the park.

“We would make sure no state funds were expended on the religious elements that were part of the project,” said Hoffman.

But in a letter Seidel sent to state officials, he charged the green spaces are still part of the Christian-themed park and therefore should not be given government funds.

“The brochure makes it quite clear that this is not a park, it is a ‘Christian Park,'" reads the letter. "This is not a permanent green space, but ‘a permanent Christian green space.’

“The government can’t build a parking lot for a church anymore than it can build a green space for a church,” said Seidel. (As Justice Black asked in 1947, Does that mean public money can not be used for fire and police to protect Churches, Synagogues & even mosques? After all by using STATE tax money for these purposes is supporting & protecting religion...OM)

“The contract isn't signed, it’s not even completely drafted, no funds have been spent, nothing has been disbursed. So we’re still in the very early stages,” said Hoffman. She went on to say that if the board found they had new information they could change their decision to award the money. They’ll make that decision at their next meeting.

Smith says he hasn't read the letter from the FFRF yet and he hasn't heard anything from the Vision Iowa board indicating they wouldn't receive the grant money.

If the grant money is taken away Smith said, “It means I have a lot more work to do, I’ll just keep raising money. This park is going to happen.” Adding that although he will make sure the garden is fully funded through fundraising efforts, the loss of the grant, “would be a real blow.”

Seidel said the FFRF hasn't received an official response from chairwoman Reece and expects it to take some time before they do. He said they would choose their next steps at a later point if the board decides to award the garden with the grant.

Smith said that without the grant money, in the last year and a half they have raised about $660,000 of the estimated needed $850,000 to complete the park. Right now the garden is under construction with planting planned in the fall.

Primary Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/25/no-eden-atheist-group-takes-on-religious-themed-public-garden/

America was Warned: White House Planning Bailout of Health Insurance Cos.

The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.

The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections.

Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a "bailout" for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.

They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn't need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years.

But the change in regulations essentially provides insurers with another backup: If they keep rate increases modest over the next couple of years but lose money, the administration will tap federal funds as needed to cover shortfalls.

Although little noticed so far, the plan was already beginning to fuel a new round of attacks Tuesday from the healthcare law's critics.

"If conservatives want to stop the illegal Obamacare insurance bailout before it starts they must start planning now," wrote Conn Carroll, an editor of the right-leaning news site Townhall.com.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee began circulating a memo on the issue and urging colleagues to fight what they are calling "another end-run around Congress."

Obama administration officials said the new regulations would not put taxpayers at risk. "We are confident this three-year program will not create a shortfall," Health and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields Britt said in a statement. "However, we want to be clear that in the highly unlikely event of a shortfall, HHS will use appropriations as available to fill it."

The stakes are high for President Obama and the healthcare law.

Although more than 8 million people signed up for health coverage under the law, exceeding expectations, insurance companies in several states have been eyeing significant rate increases for next year amid concerns that their new customers are older and sicker than anticipated.

Insurers around the country have started to file proposed 2015 premiums, just as the midterm campaigns are heating up. Obamacare, as the law is often called, remains a top campaign issue, and big premium increases in states with tightly contested races could prove politically disastrous for Democrats.

If rates go up dramatically, consumers may also turn away from insurance marketplaces in some states, leading to their collapse.

Proposed increases in a few states where insurers have already filed 2015 rates have been relatively low, with several major carriers seeking just single-digit hikes. But insurers in closely watched states, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Arkansas, are still preparing their filings.

"It's absolutely paramount to keep premiums in check," said Len Nichols, a health economist at George Mason University who has advised officials working on the law.

The state-based marketplaces, which opened last year, allow consumers who do not get health coverage at work to shop among plans that meet basic standards. Sick consumers cannot be turned away, and low- and moderate-income Americans qualify for government subsidies to offset their premiums.

To stabilize this new system, the law set up a complex system of funds, including one known as the Temporary Risk Corridors Program, that collect money from insurers and transfer it from companies with healthier, less expensive consumers to those with sicker, more costly consumers.

This system was supposed to pay for itself, as does a similar one used to shift money between drug plans in the Medicare Part D program.

But insurance industry officials have grown increasingly anxious about the new system's adequacy.

Pressure is most acute on insurers in states where healthy consumers were allowed to remain in old plans that are not sold on the new online marketplaces, an option Obama offered to states amid a political firestorm over plan cancellations last year. The president had promised people would be able to stick with their plans.

The renewal temporarily solved a political problem for the White House, but created a new one. Maintaining these old plans kept many healthy consumers out of the marketplaces, making the pool of new customers less healthy and therefore potentially more expensive for insurers, according to experts.

In a series of White House meetings over the last several months, Obama and other senior administration officials have sought to persuade insurance company CEOs to nonetheless hold rates in check, arguing that the marketplaces would stabilize over time.

But with proposed 2015 rates beginning to come in, the administration acceded to industry demands for a clear guarantee that more money would be available to cover potential losses.

"In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year, HHS recognizes that the Affordable Care Act requires the secretary to make full payments to issuers," the regulation published Friday notes. "In that event, HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments, subject to the availability of appropriations."

That language allows the administration to tap funds appropriated for other health programs to supplement payments to insurers, according to administration and industry officials.

Among congressional Republicans, the decision has raised concerns. "If the program costs more than it brings in, the secretary would be able to divert money intended for other programs," Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee warned.

Whether the new regulations will be sufficient to control rates remains unclear.

America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm, welcomed the administration's move, saying in a statement that the regulations "provide important clarity about how these insurer-financed programs will work as health plans prepare their rates for 2015."

In a note to investors this week, J.P. Morgan also noted that the new rules "should improve stability of the exchange market."

But some insurers continue to warn of bigger increases. Larry Levitt, an insurance expert at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, cautioned that some consumers may still be in for sticker shock.

"Premium hikes will likely be modest in much of the country," he said. "But probably not everywhere."

Source: noam.levey@latimes.com at http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html#page=1

And Socialist Take Over Keeps On Coming

"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes"....Manifesto of the Communist Party Karl Marx, 1848

Feds’ latest land grab: Designate contested N.M. area a national monument

Bundy types of protests feared in New Mexico

(Where in the Constitution is this authorized...OM)

As dusk settles upon the city of Las Cruces, N.M. on Thursday, Oct. 25, 2007, a full moon emerges from behind the Organ Mountains. (AP Photo/Las Cruces Sun-News, Shari Vialpando)

President Obama on Wednesday will declare a national monument in southern New Mexico, delivering a win for environmentalists but angering ranchers and local law enforcement, who say the land restrictions will end up creating a safe haven for drug cartels to operate within the U.S.

Mr. Obama will declare about 500,000 acres as the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. About half of that land is expected to be set aside as wilderness, meaning it will be closed to vehicles and construction. ("The public ownership of all gold, silver, copper, lead, iron, coal and other mines and all oil and gas wells"...Platform of the Social Democratic Party of America, 1900. Published in Appeal to Reason, #250, Sept. 15, 1900, pg 3.)

Local ranchers say it's a land grab that will interfere with their grazing rights, and border security advocates said the move will make it tougher for federal agents and local police to patrol the land, leaving a security gap that Mexican smuggling cartels will exploit.

"This is about opposing so many thousands of acres that is going to create nothing more than a pathway for criminals to get into this country to do their criminal acts," Dona Ana County Sheriff Todd Garrison told The Washington Times in a telephone interview Monday. (And more voters for the Socialist, I mean Democratic Party...OM)

The monument has been in the works for some time and has been controversial from the start.

Conservationists and tourism businesses have been pushing for the designation, hoping it will bring more visitors.

"The Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument will help protect our way of life while allowing for responsible development and expanding opportunities for all Americans to enjoy the beauty and multi-cultural history of this unique landscape," Billy Garrett, Dona Ana County Commission chairman, said in a statement.

But land rights advocates said it is the precursor to more conflicts like the recent standoff in Nevada, where a rancher refused to comply with a court order that he stop grazing on Bureau of Land Management property, prompting the BLM to confiscate his cattle, though they were returned after a public outcry.

The BLM, which is part of the Interior Department, will administer the national monument.

The land contains five mountain ranges with fragile landscapes, prehistoric rock art and more recent historic sites such as a training area for the Apollo astronauts.

The monument would cover hundreds of thousands of acres right next to the Mexican border.

New Mexico's representatives in Congress have been divided over the monument. Rep. Stevan Pearce, a Republican, called for a 50,000-acre monument, one-tenth the size of the one Mr. Obama will designate.

But the half-million-acre proposal has the backing of the state's U.S. senators, both of them Democrats. (Hey New Mexico, isn't it time for a change or do you like having two Senators that are following the Socialist plan representing you?...OM)

"An Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument will preserve important cultural links to our past and strengthen southern New Mexico's economy by boosting tourism and recreational opportunities, like hunting, hiking, camping, and horseback riding," Sen. Martin Heinrich said in a statement.

Only Congress can declare a national park, which stops most land uses. But under the 1906 Antiquities Act the president has the power to declare national monuments, which offer heightened environmental protections.

The New Mexico monument is Mr. Obama's second designation this year. In March, he added 1,600 acres in the Point Arena-Stornetta region to the California Coastal National Monument established by President Clinton in 2000. House Republicans said the action wasn't necessary because they had passed similar legislation that was awaiting Senate action.

About half the Organ Mountains monument will be designated as wilderness, the highest level of protection, closing it to motorized vehicles and human construction.

Sheriff Garrison said that will shut down roads that his department uses to patrol the land, though he said the cartels are unlikely to stop using it just because it is declared wilderness.

"My fear is these areas will be used more than they are now because they'll have access to it that will be private and closed off to every law-abiding citizen," the sheriff said. "I believe this monument will hamper law enforcement's ability to effectively patrol the area we need to patrol."

Administration officials said the declaration will incorporate a 2006 agreement between the Interior Department and the Homeland Security Department that allows U.S. Border Patrol some access to the land.

That agreement prevents most routine patrols through wilderness, though it does allow them to continue to follow smugglers in hot pursuit.

The agreement has been controversial for both sides of the immigration debate. Environmentalists and some immigrant rights advocates argue that the Border Patrol has used the arrangement to trample pristine land. Border security advocates say agents' hands are tied when they are in pursuit of illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.

Rep. Rob Bishop, a Utah Republican who has studied the issue, argues that the environmental restrictions have indeed hurt the Border Patrol's ability to do its job.

Hours before news of the designation broke Monday, Mr. Bishop, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee's public lands subcommittee, sent a letter to Mr. Obama asking him to hold off until the border can be controlled.

"It's irresponsible to focus efforts on new land designations rather than finding solutions to existing criminal activities plaguing the border," the congressman wrote.

Mr. Bishop pointed to a case that was in the headlines last year (corrected from original...OM), in which a National Park Service employee at Chiricahua National Monument in Arizona detailed the vicious attack she suffered at the hands of an illegal immigrant. Authorities said the man smashed her head into a metal bathroom door and hit her head with a rock, striking so hard that the rock broke.

"4. The extension of Public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power.

5. The scientific reforestation of timber lands, and reclamation of swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to permanently retained as a part of the public domain." ...The Socialist Party Platform, 1908

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/19/obama-designate-national-monument-new-mexico/