Anndorie Sachs Is Accused Of Being An Unfit Parent

The story of Anndorie Sachs is unsettling, to say the least. It all began when Sachs (a mother of four who was attending school for a biomedical engineering degree) received a call from the Salt Lake City Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS). It seemed that someone answering Sachs’ name and description had given birth to a premature baby girl, who subsequently tested positive for methamphetamine. The mother had abruptly fled from the hospital leaving the infant and a $10,000 bill behind, and DCFS wanted some answers.

Of course, Sachs was not the mother of this child. The baby girl belonged to a woman named Dorthy Bell Moran, who’d stolen Sachs’ driver’s license from her car two months before. DCFS, however, was preparing to submit paperwork to declare Sachs an unfit mother and put her four kids into state custody. Sachs’ 7-year-old daughter was also pulled out of school by DCFS agents and subjected to questioning.

Eventually, the issue was cleared up, but Sachs’ problems persisted. Her medical records had been changed to include Moran’s health profile, including her blood type and other information. Sachs can’t even view her own medical records to ensure the information has been changed back — the hospitals involved won’t let her, ironically, because it could compromise the identity thief’s own rights to medical privacy. 

“It’s especially scary,” said Sachs, in an interview with WebMD, “because I have a blood-clotting disorder. If a doctor gave me the wrong blood type, it could be fatal.”

Your Takeaway: Medical identity theft is a little-known type of identity theft that can have particularly devastating consequences. In a case like the Sachs fiasco, where the victim has a serious medical condition, the effect could be deadly. While Sachs certainly didn’t mean for it to happen, she helped the identity thief by leaving her license somewhere that it could be stolen. If you never allow your license to leave your possession for any reason, however, you’ll be exponentially decreasing your odds of having your identity stolen in a similar manner.

Banking Bad: One Man’s ID-Theft Nightmare

Fighting a bad cold, Carlos Gomez had decided to sleep by himself that night so he wouldn’t expose his wife.

He awoke to a nightmare. Just before dawn, insistent pounding on the front door jolted the ex-Marine and young father out of bed. Federal agents poured into his Kendall home, pushing his wife aside and rushing to his bedroom. They held guns to his face before slapping him in handcuffs.

“I kept asking, ‘What is going on?’ ’’ recalled Gomez, who works as a UPS driver. “I was scared for my life.”

Gomez, busted in a money laundering scheme, would spend nearly two weeks in a federal detention center and another seven months under house arrest.

It took 222 days before federal prosecutors realized it was all a terrible mistake: A rogue bank worker had stolen his identity.

Thanks in part to Gomez’s own sleuthing, prosecutors eventually discovered he had been wrongfully charged. The Wachovia Bank employee had stolen $1.1 million from customers, then swiped Gomez’s identity to create a checking account under the pilfered name to launder portions of the embezzled proceeds.

Now, nearly three years after the ordeal, Gomez is suing Wachovia for “malicious prosecution.”


More at:

The Judicial-Industrial Complex

Companies, organizations and businesses are all similar to people. They are entities shaped by many factors, some not easily detected. There are countless afflictions which can potentially harm the average person, many without a discernible source or cure. Stress, however, is a common denominator among any number of afflictions, often serving as the accelerator, the catalyst, or even the cause of the affliction. Stress is an invisible killer.

The equivalent of stress in an organization or company is litigation. Stress is created as a result of fear -- an emotion on which some might argue the legal profession is based. By creating a fear of the unknown, attorneys are effectively given license to endlessly bill their clients while creating no-win propositions for their opposition. Granted, a small percentage of cases truly require legal intervention. But most disputes could be easily resolved out of court, often with better results for all parties involved.

In many cases, an actual physical plaintiff seeking representation is not necessary -- just a person to act as the anchor of a class action claim, often over a nominal sum, against a company. Despite this pseudo-plaintiff having never sought representation, the law firm can now proceed with seeking to extract a settlement from the opposing side. Said settlement is calculated to be a percentage of the legal fees and other damages which would be incurred by the party defending the matter, regardless of the outcome. Nevertheless, the main beneficiary is, of course, the law firm mounting the case.

An increasingly alarming number of frivolous cases are being filed, both as class action suits and individual claims. Many proceed for years, sometimes for more than a decade. Even if a claim is defeated, the costs involved in defending a claim are exorbitant. Additionally, accusations contained in the lawsuit become public record, and the attorneys often utilize a negative press campaign along with litigation. The fallout from this tactic is only exacerbated by the Internet, with public fixation on the accusation rather than the outcome. Furthermore, the winner of a litigation is not entitled to recovery of fees and cannot recover the damages resulting from the negative effects of the publicity, often forcing a reasonable defendant to settle the claim in order to save money, mitigate reputational damage, and be able to focus on their business. In short, it's open season for attorneys to sue anyone for virtually any reason, particularly in California.

A 2012 survey by the Institute for Legal Reform ranked California 47th out of 50 among the worst states in "lawsuit climate" and Los Angeles and San Francisco as among the "six least fair jurisdictions in the entire nation." California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, a tort reform group, stated, "California is one of the most litigious states in the nation... Nearly 1.4 million lawsuits are filed in California every year."

The increase in the number of litigations is a direct result of there being no disincentive for attorneys to sue, regardless of whether or not the case is winnable. The only obstacle is surviving the pleading stages, which one might presume is difficult if the claim is truly frivolous, but would be incorrect because of what's called "litigation privilege." For a party to sue another party, they need only allege wrongdoing, regardless of the validity of the allegation. In all states, lying is "protected activity" under litigation privilege, and is without consequence for lawyers.

While the meaning can range depending on venue, litigation privilege basically states that attorneys can commit torts and even crimes as long as they do so in pursuit of their client's interests. That "privilege" protects the attorney not only from acts the attorney directs against the opposing side, but acts committed against any innocent victim -- even if they are not part of the dispute -- who is impacted, intentionally or otherwise, along the way. Different venues have varying definitions for "protected activity," but at a minimum, protected activity provides that attorneys are entitled to lie on behalf of their clients. The public policy purpose, which attorneys promoted as the justification for litigation privilege, was to allow attorneys to sue anyone they wished without intimidation. The result however is the ability for attorneys to litigate against anyone without consideration for whether or not a claim is valid. Essentially, attorneys are not accountable for what they do so long as that activity is done under the broad interpretation of "in pursuit of their client's interests."


More at:

A Fresh Look At The Veterans’ Scandal

Let’s set the stage for discussing the scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs: A new president, promising hope and change, campaigns to help veterans and improve their medical care. He appoints a decorated war hero to head the Veterans Bureau. But soon thousands of veterans complain about wait times and lack of treatment. On the financial side, leaders at the Veterans Bureau cook the books, and make fortunes buying and selling land to build new VA hospitals. Taxpayers lose millions of dollars in fraud and the medical needs of veterans are often ignored.

Sound familiar? It should. That’s the story of President Warren Harding and Charles Forbes, the man Harding chose as the first head of the Veterans Bureau. From the start, the Veterans Bureau was corrupt and mismanaged. Government was not capable of sound administration in the 1920s, under President Harding, and not much has improved ninety years later under President Obama. The fraud at Veterans Affairs then and now may be a foreshadowing of government-run health care for the nation.

The idea of hospital care for veterans began after World War I. Before that, war veterans received small pensions if they could show they were injured in military service to the point they could not do their civilian jobs. The American Legion became a powerful lobby after WWI, and free health care for vets became a reality in the 1920s. A more financially sound idea for providing medical care would have been to give vouchers to veterans for medical services at existing hospitals. But politicians saw advantages to setting up special veterans’ hospitals in their political districts–Congressmen, under a system of government-run hospitals, could take credit with voters for building new hospitals locally for veterans.

The good intentions of medical help for veterans turned into scandal and fraud right from the start. President Harding and the many supporters of the new veterans’ hospitals did not understand that new incentives were in place for corruption, not health care. Lt. Col. Charles Forbes, the new head of the Veterans Bureau, won the Distinguished Service Medal in WWI. But once in power in government, he and his friends made millions of dollars from selling high priced land for the new hospitals, and then overcharging to build them.


More at:

How Twitter Empowers Liberal Trolls

Twitter stock is falling as I write, and I know at least one reason why. It is a thoroughly unstable, politically loaded environment and not at all the open-minded marketplace of ideas it pretends to be.

Stockholders cannot be happy. In fact, they have every right to be upset. The day after Christmas Twitter was trading at very nearly $75 a share. Today it is trading at $31 a share.

For those groomed on Common Core math, this means that if you had invested $10,000 in December, you would have already lost more than $5,800.

Although a fan of Facebook, I never much trusted Twitter and have used it only sparingly. So I was surprised about a month or so back to find my “Notifications” box cluttered with cryptic messages that seemed to be attacking me from the right.

A little naïve, I sent a polite email to the sender asking what he was hoping to accomplish and received a snippy, cryptic response in return.

Doing just a little digging, I stumbled into a sad, nasty little underworld of whose existence I had been only dimly aware.

As best I could figure, a small corps (pronounced “corpse” in Obama-speak) of liberal trolls had concluded that I was the co-leader of an extremely effective group called the Tea Party Fire Ants (TPFA) who had been tweeting under the name “Frank M Davis JR.”

For reasons of his employment, that individual remains anonymous. As I have since learned, he is a very bright, media-savvy guy from the East Coast who goes by the name “Proe.”

Through effective use of Twitter, Proe and his brave co-leader, Kathy Amidon, played a major role in getting 192 congressmen to co-sponsor House Resolution 36, the bill establishing a select committee to investigate and report on the Benghazi attack.

Their success invited a series of relentless, coordinated false-flag attacks from the trolls. By pretending to be conservatives, they attempt to discredit the TPFA and confuse its followers.

This is an old Marxist trick. As I reported last month, the KGB and its homegrown allies – Jim Jones of Jonestown fame for instance – made a practice of sending hate messages to African-Americans and other minorities on conservative letterhead to incite a reaction against the right.


More at:

Legalized Pot Hurting Mexico Cartels & Infuriating DEA

In news that no one had to be Nostradamus to predict, the legalization of marijuana has had a ripple effect on the “War on Drugs,” massively impacting the profitability and reach of Mexican drug cartels, which are taking a huge financial hit. The cost of the “drug” has dropped on the black market, and in turn has dropped the pay to farmers growing it in Mexico from $100 a kilo to $25 since it’s so readily available legally. With growers based in the US, the demand has plummeted for cannabis that has to be smuggled into the country. The market is showing its efficacy very clearly (read a thorough breakdown on this topic from James Miller here). This is upsetting not only to the cartels, but also to the DEA.

The natural effect of legalization is for bootleggers and smugglers to die off, taking the violence that accompanies any illicit trade with them. You may remember a little thing called “alcohol prohibition,” which is universally viewed as an idiotically bad idea that cost millions of dollars (and in 1920s dollars nonetheless!) and thousands of lives. Everyone agrees it was pointless and the country was better off when it ended than when it began. The insane war against marijuana (and other drugs) falls into the same category, yet quixotically it’s only now that people seem to be waking up to that fact.

The DEA even acknowledges this fact, yet continue to vehemently support the War on Drugs.

Former DEA senior intelligence specialist Sean Dunagan told VICE News that, although it’s too early to verify the numbers: “Anything to establish a regulated legal market will necessarily cut into those profits. And it won’t be a viable business for the Mexican cartels — the same way bootleggers disappeared after prohibition fell.”


More at:

Anti-Obama Filmmaker Pleads Guilty In Federal Court

As I read the following article my heart broke and I couldn't help but weep.

It is heartbreaking when Christians believe it is okay to use dishonest means to achieve victory over evil. One does not gain victory over evil through deceit. Dinesh D'Souza has destroyed his Christian testimony and done great harm to the cause of Christ by allowing this charade to continue until forced in court to confess.

I have absolutely no animosity toward my brother in Christ. Just a great deal of sadness. He will have to endure the shame for his actions but each of us that claim the name of Christ need to lift him up in fervent prayer.

Folks, this is not how we win! This is not how the founders of our nation created the greatest Republic in the history of the world.

According to John 8:32 (KJV) And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. I believe this to mean, not only, freedom from the penalties of sin but freedom from the penalties of men. Yes, that freedom sometimes comes at a great price but only truth can bring true liberty. We're losing our liberties more with each passing day. Is it because of an absence of truth?

The only complete truth is found in the perfectly preserved Word of God. Psalms 12:6&7 (KJV) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Those perfectly preserved Words of God are available for all.

There was a day when the pulpits in America stood up and proclaimed the truth. There was a day when Christians refused to make excuses for the lack of virtue displayed by public officials. When will we, once again, require virtue in exchange for our support and our vote? Job 4:8 (KJV) Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.

ARTICLE

D'Souza takes responsibility for campaign cash

Filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, whose movie “2016: Obama’s America” rocked the 2012 presidential election campaign, pleaded guilty Tuesday to two charges of illegal campaign contributions.

In a hearing before U.S. District Judge Richard Berman that lasted just under an hour, he admitted reimbursing friends for making contributions to Wendy Long’s U.S. Senate campaign in 2012.

He confirmed that he reimbursed two friends $10,000 in cash for their contributions to the campaign. The federal limit for individuals making contributions was $5,000.

The plea bargain had been expected. In a statement announcing the Tuesday hearing, the U.S. attorney’s office used language “that typically indicates that a plea is expected to occur,” according to a New York Times analysis.

Long was challenging Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, a Democrat, in the 2012 race and the filmmaker had friends contribute $20,000 then reimbursed them in cash, according to details available through the court hearing.

The contributions to the campaign were made Aug. 19 and 20, 2012.


More at:

What My Mother Taught Me

I don't know where this originated but I received it in an email. It's a little late for Mothers Day but I decided to post it anyway. Hope you get a good chuckle out of it!

1. My mother taught me TO APPRECIATE A JOB WELL DONE:

"If you're going to kill each other, do it outside -- I just finished cleaning!"

2. My mother taught me RELIGION:

"You better pray that will come out of the carpet."

3. My mother taught me about TIME TRAVEL:

"If you don't straighten up, I'm going to knock you into the middle of next week!"

4. My mother taught me LOGIC:

"Because I said so, that's why!"

5. My mother taught me FORESIGHT:

"Be sure you wear clean underwear in case you're in an accident."

6. My mother taught me IRONY:

"Keep laughing and I'll give you something to cry about."

7. My mother taught me about OSMOSIS:

"Shut your mouth and eat your supper!"

8. My mother taught me about CONTORTIONISM:

"Will you look at the dirt on the back of your neck!"

9. My mother taught me about STAMINA:

"You'll sit there 'til all that spinach is finished."

10. My mother taught me about WEATHER:

"It looks as if a tornado swept through your room."

11. My mother taught me how to solve PHYSICS PROBLEMS:

"If I yelled because I saw a meteor coming toward you, would you listen then?"

12. My mother taught me about HYPOCRISY:

"If I've told you once, I've told you a million times -- don't exaggerate!!!"

13. My mother taught me THE CIRCLE OF LIFE:

"I brought you into this world, and I can take you out."

14. My mother taught me about BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION:

"Stop acting like your father!"

15. My mother taught me about ENVY:

"There are millions of less fortunate children in this world who don't have wonderful parents like you do!"

Individual Rights Or Community Rights?

The Founders of our nation argued strongly for individual rights. By that, they meant the right of each person to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believed that the sum of many people having such personal liberty would ultimately create strong communities. In other words, strong individual rights translated into vibrant communities and a prosperous nation.

In the 1830s, one generation after the Washington presidency, the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville visited the U.S. and observed the thriving voluntary organizations founded in city after city to improve the quality of life. The “safety net” of the 1800s was stretched out by concerned citizens in the cities of America who cared for the mentally ill, the elderly, stray dogs, and so on.

In this environment, government was small and, as President Thomas Jefferson observed, “It may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, ‘What farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a tax gatherer of the United States?’” Very few Americans did see tax collectors, but even so, that small revenue collected from tariffs and whiskey taxes paid off the national debt completely in the 1830s. Americans were showing the world that freedom works; and when the slaves were freed in the next generation, Americans showed themselves willing to practice more thoroughly what we were preaching in our Founding documents.

The big change in national attitude began in the Progressive Era with the idea that the federal government needed to be enlarged to protect community rights that were being threatened by the selfish use of individual rights by rich Americans. Theodore Roosevelt gave voice to this idea in 1910 when he announced that “every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

Who would determine what the “public welfare” was? Progressives believed then and now that politicians, especially progressive politicians, and educated experts can objectively decipher “the public welfare.” The individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness had to be reigned in, new taxes had to be collected, and government planning had to take place.


More at:

The Miracle at Sapoá

Late the evening of March 23, 1988, in the tiny town of Sapoá, Nicaragua, a group of men filed into a large conference room packed with reporters from every major news organization in the world. In the light of dozens of TV video recorders and camera flashes, the world watched in astonishment as the leaders of two bitterly opposed armies stood before a table to sign an agreement ending 8 years of bloody civil war.

Christians believe that God superintends history to accomplish his purposes and respond to the prayers of His people. In a dark world where evil often appears so prevalent, it is difficult to discern God’s hand of Providence. But occasionally there is an instance of deliverance in response to prayer that is so striking and so remarkable, that we do well to take note and remember. The Peace of Sapoá was one such event.

To appreciate just how remarkable this peace accord was, it is necessary to understand the forces that pushed Nicaraguans to go to war with each other. In the 1970’s, communism was on the march in much of Latin America. The goal of the world communist movement was to bring all nations under communist control through violent revolutions.

In Nicaragua, a communist insurgent group arose who called themselves Sandinistas, named after Agusto Sandino, a nationalist revolutionary leader of the 1930’s. In 1979, they led a popular uprising which ousted the brutal and corrupt dictator Anastasio Somoza. Soon after, the Sandinista revolutionary leaders began to remodel Nicaragua according to the Cuban socialist model. Properties were confiscated, dissent squelched, and the economy began a downward spiral. The Sandinista government was strongly supported by the Soviet Union and Cuba, as well as all the Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe. The Sandinistas also began showing their support for other communist guerilla movements, sending arms to revolutionary guerillas in El Salvador.

Most Nicaraguans, however, did not want a communist government. Many fled the country. Others crossed the border into Honduras and joined counterrevolutionary guerilla groups called the Contras. The Contras were supported by the U.S. as part of the Reagan Administration’s fight against the perceived threat of communism in the Western Hemisphere. The Contras began crossing into Nicaragua and attacking Sandinista government positions, both military and civilian. The Contra War began. As the 80’s passed, both camps became increasingly polarized. More than 61,000 Nicaraguans died in the fighting.

Even today, there is still controversy among Christians over the U.S. role in supporting the Contra movement. It is not my purpose here to justify either side of this debate. It is rather to show how God brought a sudden and unexpected deliverance to a nation in suffering, in response to the prayers of His people, and how that mercy was the harbinger of a much greater deliverance worldwide.

In 1987, the Nicaraguan Contra civil war was becoming bloodier, with no end in sight. Many presidents of other nations and influential people had tried to bring about peace negotiations, to no effect. From the Soviet Union, arms poured into the Sandinista government. Through universal military conscription, the combined Sandinista army and militia surpassed 300,000, making Nicaragua one of the most militarized countries of the world.   Fighting them was a U.S.-supported guerrilla force of about 25,000 Contras, mostly peasant volunteers very dedicated to the cause of ousting the Sandinistas.  Observers in Nicaragua saw no hope of peace anytime in the near future.

For example, in an interview, the Contra leader Alfonso Calero said that peace talks would likely fail, and the Contras were committed to continue fighting.  “We have the equipment now,” he said, “and we have the men. We are going to start bringing the war down into the populated areas.”5 Meanwhile, President Ronald Reagan requested $270 million dollars in further aid to the Contras.

The Sandinista leaders were, if possible, even more adamant. They issued a statement that they had repeated many times: “The people of Nicaragua and the Sandinista National Liberation Front declare that never, in any way, in any place, through any intermediary, will there be direct or indirect political dialogue with the counter-revolutionary leadership.”  An end to the war looked impossible.

Six months later, these same men sat down together and negotiated a peace accord which has lasted over 25 years. How did this happen?

Though outwardly peace did not look possible, other events were unfolding quietly that were to have great significance in the months to follow. Evangelical Christians in Nicaragua were a small but fast-growing minority. Though previously plagued by divisions, for the first time in history, Nicaraguan evangelicals from every denomination and of every political stripe began meeting together to pray for their country.  Beginning around 1985, pastors’ retreats were sponsored by an interdenominational evangelical relief association called CEPAD. At first the retreats attracted 200 to 300 pastors, who met for fellowship and prayer.  As conditions in Nicaragua worsened, a retreat was planned at the coastal community of La Boquita. From every corner of the country, over 3000 pastors of different denominations and political persuasions united in prayer for the peace of their country.

During this time, the Roman Catholic majority were not silent. Though some Catholics, including some clergy, became leaders in the Sandinista revolutionary government, most of the clergy and parishioners wanted Nicaragua to be peaceful and free, and prayed to that end. The archbishop of Nicaragua, Miguel Obando y Bravo publicly prayed “for a peace in which hatred is not the motivating force in society.”

Then in 1987, a prayer rally was called in the capital city of Managua, just across from the major University. An unprecedented 10,000 people of every denomination came to intercede and pray for peace.11 Did God answer these prayers? Let us look at the events leading to the peace accord.


More at:

Federal Government Seldom Able To Police Itself

America's founders, largely distrustful of centralized power, created several checks and balances into the U.S. Constitution to help insure that one person, or one group of people, would not be able to unilaterally exert his or their will over the American citizenry. First, the federal government itself was divided into three separate and distinct branches--each holding the capability (and responsibility) to check the power of the other. Second, the Bill of Rights was made part of the Constitution for the protection of individual liberties. Third, the "free and independent states" of the nation retained their sovereignty and independence after the central government was created (by the states), with the Tenth Amendment specifically recognizing their authority and jurisdiction over matters not directly delegated to the federal government.

It was also assumed that the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion would help the citizenry be sufficiently informed and inspired to keep the would-be despots at bay. And, of course, "We the People" are recognized as being the ultimate guardians of liberty by the recognition that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (Declaration) The "consent of the governed" was given teeth by the constitutional recognition of the people's right to wield the power of the voting booth, the jury box, and, as a last resort, the cartridge box.

What has become increasingly obvious to a large segment of the American populace is the complete unwillingness of the national media to hold the federal government accountable. Neither do America's pulpits provide the moral leadership necessary to maintain good government. The freedom of the press and religion accomplish precious little today in the safeguarding of liberty. And it is also absolutely clear that the three branches of government in Washington, D.C., adamantly refuse to use the constitutional obligations placed upon them to hold the federal government in check.

The latter was made crystal clear by a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is the report:

"A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to 'detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,' according to critics.

"The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.


More at: