CBS talk show host models for Planned Parenthood fundraiser

Roshini Rajkumar hosts CBS’ News and Views, heard on WCCO Radio in Minnesota on Sundays from noon to 3 p.m.

Roshini is a former television broadcaster and left TV news in 2006 to start her own company, the Roshini Performance Group. In 2007, she joined WCCO Radio and won the Edward R. Murrow Award for team coverage of the 2008 Republican National Convention riots. She also launched an investigative unit and hosted TV and radio talk shows.

But do not be deceived- this media darling is in bed with the largest provider of abortions in the nation.

In February of 2014, Roshini Rajkumar modeled for a fundraiser called Ready or Hot: Fashion Meets Passion for Planned Parenthood.

The event was showed off some interesting fashion clothing – like this condom dress:

Al Qaeda plans to poison food supplies at hotel salad bars and buffets

Al Qaeda group contemplated poisoning food in U.S., officials say
By Mike M. Ahlers and Brian Todd, CNN
Washington (CNN) — The al Qaeda group that built two toner-cartridge bombs in an unsuccessful attempt to blow up planes in October also has contemplated spreading poison on salad bars and buffets at U.S. hotels and restaurants, U.S. officials told CNN Tuesday.

But U.S. officials sought to downplay the threat — first reported by CBS News — saying it was months old, and that it was more in the nature of a discussion of “tactics” than an actual plot. Officials implied the tactic is beyond the capabilities of the terrorist organization, which is based in the Middle East.

The United States has received information the group — al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — was considering the tactic of placing ricin and cyanide poisons into food supplies, Department of Homeland Security officials confirmed to CNN.

In response to that information, U.S. officials met through regular channels with representatives of the hotel and restaurant businesses to discuss the possibility that terrorists could target the food supply, and to reiterate “best practices” to ensure the food supply is safe.

Officials, however, likened the threat to numerous others discussed in jihadist publications such as the online magazine Inspire, where al Qaeda members and sympathizers discuss various ways to attack Western countries.

Read Rest here

Vodpod videos no longer available.

test, posted with vodpod

The Kagan Papers- liberal – left – pro-abortion

CBS: Memos Show Kagan ‘Stood Shoulder to Shoulder with the Liberal Left’
By Brad Wilmouth

Created 06/03/2010 – 23:43

On Thursday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Jan Crawford filed a report recounting revelations that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has a history of taking solidly liberal positions on issues like abortion, gay rights, and gun control – with evidence in the form of memos, some going back to her days working for liberal Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Crawford: “Documents buried in Thurgood Marshall’s papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion.”

The CBS correspondent informed viewers that Kagan had fretted about conservatives restricting abortion rights: “In a case involving a prisoner who wanted the state to pay for her to have the procedure, Kagan writes to Marshall that the conservative-leaning court could use the case to rule against the woman and ‘create some very bad law on abortion.’”

Notably, on Monday, May 10, as the broadcast network evening newscasts introduced Kagan to their viewers, only CBS referred to her liberal ideology, as Crawford asserted [0]: “Her career has put her solidly on the left.”

In addition to having suggested that she sees a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Kagan had also admitted that “I’m not sympathetic” to a lawsuit challenging the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional. Crawford: “A recently disclosed memo on gun rights, in a case challenging the District of Columbia’s handgun ban as unconstitutional, Kagan was blunt: ‘I’m not sympathetic.’”

Crawford predicted that the revelations would have a significant impact on her confirmation hearings: “Taken together, these documents will be much harder for her to explain away than other less controversial papers unearthed before her confirmation hearings for solicitor general. … But the documents seem to show that Kagan had some pretty strong legal views of her own, and, while that may encourage liberals, it’s going to give Republicans a lot more ammunition to fight against her.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "The Kagan Papers- liberal – left – pr…", posted with vodpod

Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Thursday, June 3, CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: The Senate is scheduled to begin confirmation hearings at the end of this month for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Kagan has never been a judge, but she did clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. And in this exclusive report, chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford tells us she does have a paper trail.

JAN CRAWFORD: Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that some on the left have worried she’s too moderate.

ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Everybody’s treated me very well.

CRAWFORD: But documents buried in Thurgood Marshall’s papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion.

CLIP OF PROTESTERS: Abortion’s got to go!

CRAWFORD: In a case involving a prisoner who wanted the state to pay for her to have the procedure, Kagan writes to Marshall that the conservative-leaning court could use the case to rule against the woman and “create some very bad law on abortion.” She expressed strong views in a school desegregation case, calling a school busing plan “amazingly sensible.” She said state court decisions upholding the plan recognized the “good sense and fair mindedness” of local efforts adding, “Let’s hope this court takes not of the same.” Kagan also wrote a memo Republicans will use to say she found a constitutional right to gay marriage. That case involved a man who said the state of New York was required to recognize his marriage in Kansas, even though it was illegal in New York. Kagan told Marshall his position was “arguably correct.” And then, a recently disclosed memo on gun rights, in a case challenging the District of Columbia’s handgun ban as unconstitutional, Kagan was blunt: “I’m not sympathetic.” Taken together, these documents will be much harder for her to explain away than other less controversial papers unearthed before her confirmation hearings for solicitor general. At the time, she said:

KAGAN, DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2009: I was a 27-year-old pipsqueak, and I was working for an 80-year-old giant in the law, and a person who, let us be frank, had very strong jurisprudential and legal views.

CRAWFORD: But the documents seem to show that Kagan had some pretty strong legal views of her own, and, while that may encourage liberals, it’s going to give Republicans a lot more ammunition to fight against her.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

White House: Obama may use executive privilege to withhold Kagan documents
Posted by Kagan Watch on June 3, 2010

In a letter to Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee Republican, Robert Bauer, counsel to Obama, implied the president may use executive privilege to hide some memos Elena Kagan wrote when she served in the Clinton White House.

“President Obama does not intend to assert executive privilege over any of the documents requested by the Committee,” Bauer writes.

“Of course, President Clinton also has an interest in these records, and his representative is reviewing them now,” he adds.

The Clinton library has more than 150,000 documents related to Elena Kagan. This is one of the few sources we have to know what Kagan thinks on many issues.

Read the letter here.

Paleo-Future: 21st Century Eugenics (1967)

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "Walter Cronkite interviews biologist …", posted with vodpod

21st Century Eugenics (1967)
The CBS series 21st Century aired a program titled, “The Mystery of Life” on February 26, 1967. The program looked at genetics and the future of humanity.

In this clip, host Walter Cronkite interviews biologist James Bonner. Bonner advocates a “large-scale program of [breeding] better people,” otherwise known as eugenics. Procreation by committee sounds like tons of fun!

Bonner: Each baby, when it’s born, must donate some of his sex cells, sperm or eggs, and these are put in a deep freeze and just kept. The person leads his life, and dies. And after he’s all dead and gone, so the heat of passion is taken out of the matter, a committee meets and studies his life.

Cronkite: So during his lifetime then, he hasn’t had any children?

Bonner: He’s been sterilized, and hasn’t had any children in the normal way. After he’s dead and gone, the committee meets and reviews his life and asks, ‘Would we like to have some more people like him?’ If the answer’s no they take out his sex cells of the deep freeze and throw them away. But if the answer’s yes then they use him to fertilize eggs similarly selected on the basis of review and validation of a person’s contributions during his lifetime. He just doesn’t get to brazenly go out and propagate his own genes without assuring himself and everyone else that they’re the best possible genes.

Get more on Eugenics is used in the 21st Century by watching Maafa21 (Clip Below)

Petition Launched: Support CBS’s Decision to Air Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad

Note: Click here to sign the petition to support CBS and its decision to air the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad. To join the Facebook page to Support the Tim Tebow Ad, click here.

January 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pro-life forces are responding swiftly to the fierce pro-abortion campaign that is being waged against Focus on the Family’s pro-life ad featuring football superstar Tim Tebow, which is set to air on CBS during the Super Bowl on Feb. 7.

In the past few days, pro-abortion groups have generated over 120,000 letters to CBS, NFL, and Super Bowl advertising executives, asking that they scrap the ad, which has yet to be unveiled. Other pro-abortion organizations have generated thousands more.

In response, a petition was launched today by LSN, whereby pro-lifers can express support to CBS for its decision to air the ad, and exhort the network not to cave to pressure to drop the ad. The names of those who sign the petition will be forwarded on to CBS executives. (To sign the petition, click here)

At the same time, another pro-life group, the Susan B. Anthony List, has launched an effort aimed at supporting the Tebow family during the controversy. Via the ‘Block Hard for Tim Tebow’ website, pro-lifers can send messages of encouragement to Tim and his family to let them know that the pro-life movement is standing behind them.

The Focus on the Family ad is expected to feature the story of how Tebow’s mother refused to abort him despite being advised to do so by physicians for health reasons. Pam Tebow eventually gave birth to a perfectly healthy baby, who has gone on to become one of the most-recognized sports stars in America.

Despite its hopeful message, the ad has infuriated pro-abortion forces, who argue that it is tantamount to revoking women’s “right to choose.” On Wednesday, a number of pro-abortion groups launched an all-out campaign to pressure CBS into cancelling the ad.

“CBS needs to hear the voices of those who support life and family as well,” said LSN editor, John-Henry Westen. “Therefore LSN is launching this petition addressed to CBS, asking them not to cave in to pressure to pull the Focus on the Family ad.”

In a recent press release Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life commented on the war over the ad. “Why should it bother people who call themselves pro-choice if women watch Pam Tebow and her son Tim on Super Bowl Sunday and freely decide to choose life? Would fewer abortions be a bad thing?” he asked.

“As for the argument that the ad should not be shown because it is divisive, since when do we broadcast only things on which the American people all agree? In that case, the Super Bowl itself could not be broadcast.”

Westen added, “The pro-life leadership is already stepping forward to support the ad. Now it’s up to the pro-life rank and file to defend the Tebows and the right for their story to be told, whether or not pro-aborts would rather that they were silenced.”

Click here to sign the “Petition to CBS in Support of their Decision to Air the Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad”
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012809.html

PRO-ABORTION GROUPS PLAY THE “H” CARD OVER TEBOW SUPER BOWL AD

Below Commentary is WELL STATED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John G. Winder , The Cypress Times
Published 01/28/2010 – 5:42 a.m. CST

No one has seen the ad yet it is already labeled as “hate”.

Focus on the Family has received approval from CBS to air an ad during this year’s Super Bowl which delivers a pro-life message. The ad features one famous face and his mother.

The back story is this: Pam Tebow and her husband were working as Christian missionaries in the Philippines in 1987. Pam became pregnant. Doctors at that time advised Pam to abort her child due to health reasons. She did not. She had a son, Heisman Trophy winning former Florida Gators football quarterback, Tim Tebow. This is the story that apparently Pam and Tim Tebow relate in the pro-life ad slated to run during the Super Bowl.

I say “apparently” because despite abortion group accusations that the ad is “un-American” and has a message of “hate”, no one has seen the ad yet.

Erin Matson, VP of N.O.W., says she objects to the airing of the ad because CBS (the television network carrying the Super Bowl) has a longstanding policy against airing controversial ads during the big game.

Ms. Matson says, “The abortion debate has no place in the Super Bowl. I organize abortion rights rallies all the time and I recognize how inappropriate it would be for me to sit in the stands with signs at the Super Bowl.”

I agree with Ms. Matson. That would be inappropriate. It would also be inappropriate for pro-life groups to sit in the stands with signs at the Super Bowl. However, the topic at hand is an ad on television, not someone holding a sign in the stands.

N.O.W. and other pro-abortion groups have written to CBS and urged the network to reject the ad. CBS executives have seen the script for the ad and are standing by their decision to air it.

“Our standards and practices process continues to adhere to a policy that ensures all ads on all sides of an issue are appropriate for air,” a CBS statement read.

The ad featuring the Tebow’s is produced and paid for (at prices averaging around $1.2 million per :30 second ad) by Focus on The Family.

Pro-Abortion group ChoiceUSA spokesperson Kierra Johnson called Focus on the Family an “Anti-American” and “Anti-Woman” group. She said the Focus on the Family ad featuring Tim Tebow and his Mom had an “un-American” message of “hate” that has no place in the Super Bowl. Again, Ms. Johnson has not seen so much as one second of the ad.

In many Christian circles, Focus on the Family is very well known. If you’re not familiar with the group founded by the Rev. James Dobson, here is how they describe themselves.

“Focus on the Family is a global non-profit Christian organization with a vision for healing brokenness in families, communities and societies worldwide through Christ. The purpose of the ministry is to strengthen, defend and celebrate the institution of the traditional family and to highlight the unique and irreplaceable role that it plays in God’s larger story of redemption.”

I can’t find a single “Anti-American”, “Anti-Woman”, “un-American” or hate-filled thought, ideal or word in any of that description.
Ms. Johnson also said that Focus on the Family was basically trying to pull a fast one by getting an ad in the Super Bowl that delivered a “one-sided” message.

I ask anyone who has ever watched a Super Bowl, or television in general for that matter, to please cite for me one single instance ever in the annals of advertising where an ad did not have a “one-sided” message.

“One-sided” message is the epitome of the definition of all advertising.
Will the Budweiser ads aired during the Super Bowl mention that Miller Beer is awesome, too. Will “Go Daddy” ads point out that there are a myriad of ways to acquire and register a URL and that many are cheaper than “Go Daddy”? Will Apple list the best attributes of the PC? You get the gist.

Let’s go back to the “H” word.

Abortion groups are calling Focus on the Family, and the ad, and by extension, Pam and Tim Tebow, purveyors of hate.

“HATE”.

Have we dramatically changed the meaning of that word in our culture, or is it that we have so diluted the meaning of words that we now feel free to attach the most horrific words to anything with which we simply disagree?

Abortion is a volatile subject. Emotions run deep. It is literally a subject of life and death which echoes into eternity.

Even taking those visceral reactions into account, even considering the lifelong pain involved in the struggle between abortion and life, when did any opposition to abortion become hate speech?

When did we come to this awful place in our society and culture where an opposing viewpoint is automatically categorized as hate? According to this new way of conducting ourselves, if two people disagree then one, or perhaps both people, must therefore be involved in an expression of hate.

Or is it that only one of those two people carries the label of “Hate-monger”? And if it’s only one of the two, then who decides who is the hater? Does the majority decide? If anyone then puts voice to dissension, are they automatically peddling hate? That’s a slippery slope along which we are already sliding at break neck speed.

Here’s the deal. If disagreement now equates to hate, then we’re all hate mongers. No one individual agrees with every other individual all the time on every subject. So, if to disagree is to hate, then we are all haters.

According to groups like N.O.W. and ChoiceUSA, Focus on the Family is spreading “HATE” in defense of life. Yet no one has seen the content of the ad and no one knows the specifics of the ad’s message. They only know that the ad is pro-life.

Society accepts abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has stamped the act with its seal of approval. So, to be the voice speaking out in support of life is now to be the voice of hate.

If defending the life of the unborn is now “hate”, then conversely we must assume that killing a baby in the womb is now “love”? Is that the message emanating from organizations like ChoiceUSA who make their money off of the death of millions of innocents? These are the people who have successfully changed the vernacular of the debate. We no longer have abortionists, we now have abortion “providers”.

Here’s a question to weigh. Why do the people at N.O.W., ChoiceUSA and abortion clinics all over the country fear the message of life? Even a message they haven’t even heard yet.

And another question, why does our country, which was founded on the courage of dissent, now so fear anything not considered mainstream, or going with the flow?

“What a Horrible Woman!”, Jack Cafferty on CNN Blasting Pelosi regarding Global Warming trip to Copenhagen calls it “A Disgrace!”

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/
How much does Congress feel Americans’ pain in recession?

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Times are tough – very tough – for millions of Americans… but you could never tell by watching the way Congress spends our tax dollars on themselves.

CBS News has a stunning report on the all-expense paid trip at least 20 members of Congress made to the Copenhagen climate summit last month.

The bipartisan delegation led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was so large – it needed three military jets – two 737s and a Gulfstream Five. Some members brought along their spouses, children… plus there were also senators and staff members who made the trip to Denmark – most of them flying commercial.

Pelosi wouldn’t answer any questions about costs or where they all stayed – even though she was the one who decided who went. Her office says only that it will “comply with disclosure requirements.”

CBS puts the cost of military jet flying time at nearly $170,000 plus the cost of dozens of commercial flights… hundreds of hotel stays, many at the five-star Marriott… and tens of thousands of dollars in meals.

This is a disgrace – the national unemployment rate is at 10-percent, with employers cutting more jobs than expected last month. People are suffering. In California, Pelosi’s home state is faced with a $20-billion deficit. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget plan would force 200-thousand children off low-cost medical insurance… end in-home care for more than 300,000 sick and elderly citizens… and cut income assistance to hundreds of thousands more.

This nation is hurting – but Nancy Pelosi can use three military jets for a December trip to Copenhagen and then refuse to answer any questions about it.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CBS STORY:

Copenhagen Summit Turned Junket?

(CBS) Few would argue with the U.S. having a presence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. But wait until you hear what we found about how many in Congress got all-expense paid trips to Denmark on your dime.

CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that cameras spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel were also there.

They were joined by 18 colleagues: Democrats: Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn and Sensenbrenner.

That’s not the half of it. But finding out more was a bit like trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to Speaker Pelosi who wouldn’t agree to an interview. Her office said it “will comply with disclosure requirements” but wouldn’t give us cost estimates or even tell us where they all stayed.

Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an “opposing view.”

“They’re going because it’s the biggest party of the year,” Sen. Inhofe said. “The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar.”

Our investigation found that the congressional delegation was so large, it needed three military jets: two 737’s and a Gulfstream Five — up to 64 passengers — traveling in luxurious comfort.

Along with those who flew commercial, we counted at least 101 Congress-related attendees. All for a summit that failed to deliver a global climate deal.

As a perk, some took spouses, since they could snag an open seat on a military jet or share a room at no extra cost to taxpayers. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was there with her husband. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) was also there with her husband. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) took his wife, as did Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Congressman Barton — a climate change skeptic — even brought along his daughter.

Until required filings are made in the coming weeks, we can only figure bits and pieces of the cost to you.

# Three military jets at $9,900 per hour – $168,000 just in flight time.
# Dozens flew commercial at up to $2,000 each.
(CBS)

# 321 hotel nights booked – the bulk at Copenhagen’s five-star Marriott.
# Meals add tens of thousands more.

Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, wasn’t against a U.S. presence. But he said, “Every penny counts. Congress should be shaking the couch cushions looking for change, rather than spending cash for everybody to go to Copenhagen.”

Nobody we asked would defend the super-sized Congressional presence on camera. One Democrat said it showed the world the U.S. is serious about climate change.

And all those attendees who went to the summit rather than hooking up by teleconference? They produced enough climate-stunting carbon dioxide to fill 10,000 Olympic swimming pools.

Which means even if Congress didn’t get a global agreement – they left an indelible footprint all the same.