The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded $2.7 million to study why lesbians are at a higher “risk for hazardous drinking.”
The University of Illinois has received grants since 2009 for its project, “Cumulative Stress and Hazardous Drinking in a Community of Adult Lesbians,” which aims to develop “culturally sensitive” strategies to prevent lesbians from being drunks.
“Studies using both probability and nonprobability samples provide ample evidence of lesbians’ vulnerability to hazardous drinking,” the grant’s description reads. “However, very little is known about the factors that increase lesbians’ risk for hazardous drinking.”
“We propose to build on and extend our study of sexual identity and drinking… to model effects of cumulative stress on hazardous drinking among lesbians.”
[…]The grant states that there are “chronic stressors unique to sexual minorities, creating cumulative stress that may be compounded in lesbians of color.”
The study is being led by Tonda Hughes, professor at the Department of Health Systems Science at the University of Illinois, an “internationally recognized expert in the area of alcohol use among lesbians,” according tothe University.
[…]The University of Illinois is not alone in receiving federal funds to study “sexual minorities” and their propensity to drink. The University of Washington has been awarded $1,154,445 since 2010 for its project “High Risk Drinking in Emerging Adult at-Risk Women,” which seeks to find out why young lesbians and bisexuals face an “elevated” chance for hazardous drinking.
Old Dominion University in 2012 received $446,056 for its study titled “Minority Stress, Alcohol Use, and Intimate Partner Violence Among Lesbians.”
Last time, we saw that the federal government was spending $1.5 million on studying why so many lesbians are overweight. Never believe the government knows more about how to spend the money they take from you than you do. It’s your money. They are wasting it. Instead of cutting wasteful spending like this, they release illegal immigrants with criminal convictions. You should never vote for bigger government. If you want to help people, use your own money.
The National Institutes of Health awarded a Boston hospital more than $1.5 million to figure out why nearly three-quarters of lesbians are overweight — calling the disparities a significant public health issue.
“It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic, with nearly three-quarters of adult lesbians overweight or obese, compared to half of heterosexual women,” according to a description of the grant.
The taxpayer money was awarded to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston to study the relationship between sexual orientation and obesity.
[…]“Obesity is one of the most critical public health issues affecting the U.S. today,” the grant states. “Racial and socioeconomic disparities in obesity are receiving increasing attention; however, one area of disparities that is only beginning to be recognized is the striking interplay of gender and sexual orientation.”
[…]Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said it is disturbing that tax dollars are being used to fund the study.
“When you look at a nation that’s $17 trillion in debt – there’s a reason. It’s because we do frivolous studies that serve no benefit other than to give a special interest group something to talk about,” he told Fox News. “Why are we issuing grants to study things that have no affect on the well-being of the nation as a whole?”
Oh I have no doubt this is worth studying… but maybe they could use their own money instead of my money, since I need my money for other things – and I actually had to do the work to earn it. Why do people on the left think that they have the right to spend money that I earned? Were they there in my calculus class? Were they there in the labs with me doing assignments? I don’t mind if they want to spend their own money on lesbian obesity, but why are they so convinced that they have a right to spend my money on that?
If you needed any proof that Obama does not have the temperament to be President, here it is in this Newsmax article.
Sixty-thousand federal employees responsible for securing the nation’s borders and facilitating trade will be furloughed for as many as 14 days starting next month because of $85 billion in cross-government spending cuts.
The federal government notified the workers on Thursday, CNN reports.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said the furloughs and other austerity measures would cause delays at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports, and would reduce the number of border patrol officers on duty at any one time, CNN reports.
[…]Customs collects more money for the federal government than any agency other than the Internal Revenue Service, the National Treasury Employees Union said in a statement.
“There is no escaping the reality that sequestration is having serious effects on the traveling public and on vital commerce,” the union’s president, Colleen M. Kelley, said in the statement.
Late last month, Napolitano and other Obama administration officials came under fire — particularly from officials in Arizona — for the release of hundreds of illegal immigrants held in local jails to save money as the sequester neared.
Napolitano has since promised to release more illegals, primarily on supervised release, saying the sequester had left her no choice.
“We’re going to continue to do that for the foreseeable future,” Napolitano said at a March 4 breakfast meeting hosted by Politico. “We are going to manage our way through this by identifying the lowest-risk detainees, and putting them into some kind of alternative to release.”
The border is a national security issue, because anyone coming through with a weapon of mass destruction could cost the lives of many Americans. The Border and Customs programs are not what is driving our debt. The biggest driver of our debt is entitlement spending, especially spending on Medicare. But that’s not what Obama is choosing to focus on. He wants to hurt the American people rather than doing the hard work of cutting back big government. There are lots of places where we could cut billions without impacting effectiveness. Why not look at cutting fat (Solyndra) rather than muscle (border security)?
Colombia expects lower fiscal deficits in 2013 than in 2012, while economic growth is projected at 4.8 percent for both years, Finance Minister Juan Carlos Echeverry said on Thursday.
Latin America’s No. 4 oil producer has seen a strong recovery from the global economic crisis, recouping three investment-grade credit ratings and continuing to reap strong inflows in the mining and oil sectors.
Presenting the latest fiscal plan, Echeverry said the government had revised down the 2012 central government fiscal deficit target to 2.4 percent of gross domestic product from 2.8 percent previously, and the consolidated deficit to 1.2 percent of GDP from 1.8 percent. The consolidated deficit includes the central and regional governments.
The central government deficit target is seen at 2.2 percent of GDP in 2013, with the consolidated deficit at 1 percent.
“This fiscal plan is serious, reasonable, we’re not extracting liquidity from the economy, but injecting liquidity into the economy,” Echeverry told reporters.
The government expects the economy to grow 4.8 percent this year and next. Economic expansion was 5.9 percent in 2011, the fastest growth rate in four years, helped by high foreign investment and strong consumer spending growth.
Colombia has attracted billions of dollars in foreign direct investment over the past decade, mostly into the oil and mining sectors after U.S. military aid helped security forces deal crippling blows to leftist guerrillas and cocaine cartels.
Consumer prices have remained at steady levels in recent months, and economists expect 2012 annual inflation to fall within the central bank’s target of 2 percent to 4 percent.
The fiscal plan forecasts full-year inflation at 3 percent this year and next.
Venezuela has devalued its currency, joining Iran, Argentina and others whose wars on math brought the same result. Some call this a “restorative.” It’s not. It’s what happens when big government hits a wall.
Venezuela’s monster 47% devaluation from 4.3 to 6.3 bolivars to the dollar, reportedly ordered by President Hugo Chavez from his hospital bed in Cuba, marks the reckoning for his regime’s big-spending ways in Venezuela’s low-growth economy.
[…]This devaluation is characteristic of all tyrannies, which benefit by effectively expropriating the savings of the private sector through monetary means rather than the more common thuggery.
Chavez’s meltdown is coming for the same reason devaluations are also shaking Argentina, which is undergoing a new fiscal disaster of its own, Egypt, which is going through a slo-mo devaluation that’s pushing up the price of food and prompted its Islamofascist rulers to actually urge people to eat less food, and Iran, whose madhouse economics has triggered hyperinflation.
It’s how dictators do business. This is Chavez’s sixth devaluation in the last decade of his big-spending power, following devaluations in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2010 and 2011. Every one of these devaluations inflates away some of his debts — but at the expense of the country’s savings and investment, which are snapped away through inflation.
What’s more, this devaluation, which was done to plug his deficit spending and prop up the state oil company, will only cover 60% of the country’s deficit, meaning more devaluations ahead this year, likely to take the bolivar to 8 by year end.
Venezuelan officials, predictably, claimed it was “good” as well as an “improvement” that protects the middle class against “speculators,” echoing the party line of establishment economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, former Bill Clinton adviser and chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, who in the past has called devaluations an economic ” restorative.”
Tell that to the panic buyers across Venezuela. There, terrified consumers who are buying goods ahead of expectations of soaring prices, while the poor have seen their life savings wiped out.
When Obama took office, a US dollar was worth over 1.20 Canadian. Today it’s worth about 98 cents. He has been devaluing the currency in order to pay for massive government spending. Private savings of individuals have been devalued, as a result. Inflation is a hidden tax on those who earn and save.
In the United States, we are doing the exact opposite of Colombia. We are embracing Venezuela policies, and expecting Colombia results. Why are we stupid enough to believe words instead of results? Socialism doesn’t work. Capitalism does work. We should choose what works.
President Barack Obama promoted the pro-abortion HHS mandate during the debate Tuesday night in New York, defending what Catholic and evangelical groups strongly oppose.
The mandate forces religious employers such as small businesses, colleges, and organizations to pay for abortion-causing drugs and birth control for their employees — even though it violates their religious and moral views.
Obama said this:
Now, there are some other issues that have a bearing on how women succeed in the workplace. For example, their healthcare. You know a major difference in this campaign is that Governor Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making.
I think that’s a mistake. In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured. Because this is not just a – a health issue, it’s an economic issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that family’s pocket. Governor Romney not only opposed it, he suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage.
Obama promoted taxpayer-funding of abortions several times in the debate.
The biased CNN moderator tried to prevent Romney from replying, but he finally did respond:
I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And – and the – and the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.
I’m with Romney on this one. I don’t want to subsidize the birth control pills and abortions of people who choose to have sex of their own free will. Obama also attacked Romney for wanting to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization that makes tens of millions of dollars of profits by performing abortions. Do we really have the money to pay for abortions at a time like this? Is that a mainstream view of abortion?