Could Planned Parenthood be any more ghoulish? @ppact

July 14, 2015

They’re killing unborn infants by the carload and getting taxpayer money to do it. It’s for women’s health, you know, and therefore our progressive betters have told us it’s a-okay. Don’t fret. No worries.

I mean, what’s a little organ trading among friends?

In shocking video obtained by the Center for Medical Progress and first reported by Live Action News, a top Planned Parenthood executive is seen attempting to sell body parts from aborted babies.

Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director for medical services, is caught on video bragging about how she aborts babies in such a way that their body parts and organs can later be sold for profit.

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” Nucatola tells actors posing as organ traffickers. “I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Nucatola continued. “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

Somewhere in Hell, Dr. Mengele laughs and smiles in approval.

Remember ACORN? They lost their government funding and went out of business when they were caught engaging voter fraud. (1)

But this? This is something I’d expect under a totalitarian regime, such as China; not here.

This is just evil.

ACORN lost its funding for mere voter fraud. It seems like it should be a no-brainer to cut off Planned Parenthood for harvesting organs from aborted babies. Beyond that, there should be one or more criminal investigations. At the very least, beyond the laws cited in the video, the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (PDF) forbids the sale of human organs. Hello, FBI? That’s your cue.

Beyond that, think about Dr. Nucatola calmly discussing dismembering humans and selling their remains over wine and lunch.

And then get sick.


Say it after me: “Guns save lives”

June 11, 2015

Gun Control Stupid

Via Hot Air, this woman is certainly lucky to be alive, but that’s largely because she was also wise enough to have a firearm handy to even the odds:

A Detroit woman was able to fight off five home invaders in a shootout early Tuesday morning. The woman, who has a concealed carry permit, took the robbers by surprise after they burst in her bedroom window, WDIV reports.

“I was able to get to my gun. They didn’t know I had it. By that time, it was just gunfire,” Ms. Dee said.

Free Beacon has video, and Allahpundit can give you the lowdown on how crime has declined in Detroit since the police chief there began encouraging private gun ownership. (I can imagine Mike Bloomberg clutching his pearls even now.)

The gun control crowd keeps claiming that allowing widespread ownership of firearms will lead to a bloodbath, but the opposite seems empirically true: in jurisdictions where the 2nd Amendment is respected, violent crime rates have gone down. (Let’s face it, someone is less likely to rob or assault someone if he can’t be sure his target isn’t packing.)

But, in “progressive” jurisdictions with strict gun regulations, the violent crime rates are much, much higherHello, Chicago! — probably because the potential targets can’t defend themselves, so the criminals feel they’re in their own “safe zone.”

Someday it’s going to get through to the “Moms Demand” crowd that denying a person’s natural right to self-defense is not the way to prevent gun violence. Until then, we can be grateful for those jurisdictions that do, so the “Ms. Dees” of the world can legally protect themselves.

PS: I’m not saying that correlation is causation, of course, but the correlation is strong.


Meet Senator DeLeon, California’s would-be sex czar

June 3, 2015
"You are allowed on position, two on Sundays."

“You are allowed one position, two on Sundays.”

This must be the kind of thing a once-prosperous, forward-looking state does when it slips into terminal senility. In a state where once everyone could “do their own thing,” the president of our state senate wants to regulate how we have sex:

[California’s new] “yes means yes” law effectively defines every sexual encounter as rape unless you follow the law’s specific requirements — or unless neither party turns the other in to police.

Now [State Senator Kevin] de Leon is moving on to round two: Teaching high school students the “correct” way to have sex. Human nature is no longer the correct way. De Leon knows the correct way — and it involves a lot of questions.

The California state senate just passed S.B. 695, which adds affirmative consent instruction to high school health courses. The bill passed by a vote of 39-0 and had bipartisan support.

“As it stands, we are not doing nearly enough. We can and must educate the youth of our state, especially our young men, about affirmative consent and healthy relationships,” de Leon said in a press release about the new bill. “This bill represents the next step in the fight to change behavior toward young women.”

And, if a young man doesn’t follow the precisely prescribed procedure, he can face charges of rape. Can’t wait for the goat rodeo of cases that will arise from this one.

This is precisely why limited-government conservatives believe what they do: because too many people, such as Senator de Leon, believe the government can and should manage everything.

Even the most basic human functions.

PS: I would love an explanation from the Republican caucus of why they supported this nonsense.


(Video) In which Ted Cruz owns a “reporter” on Gay rights

May 23, 2015

Senator Cruz isn’t my first choice for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, though I’ll happily vote for him if he is. However, he gets an unqualified high-five from me for putting this shill for Democratic National Committee talking points in his place:

Pardon me a moment… smiley dance smiley cheering smiley thumbs up

Few things tick me off more than the progressive Left’s hypocrisy on women and Gay rights: silently ignoring the hideous abuse both suffer under Islam while creating fake controversies here at home.

Go, Ted!


Danish jihadis collecting unemployment while on jihad in Syria

May 19, 2015

“But first subsidize us, please.”

One of those “insult on injury” moments: these Muslims (1) despise Western liberal society and wish to overthrow it and replace it with one based on their totalitarian sharia law, but they’re quite willing to take our welfare money while they fight to destroy the hand that gives it to them.

We have met the useful idiot, and he is us:

A total of 32 ‘Danish’ terrorists have continued to claim state unemployment benefits amounting to kr.400,000 (£38,500) while fully employing themselves in the act of Jihad in Syria.

Documents acquired by a Danish Radio24syv show the security service and labour ministry had undertaken private discussions about the mispayments, presumably terminating them as they were discovered, but not before a significant amount of taxpayer money had been funnelled to enemies of the state.

Remarkably, out of the 32 fighters claiming Denmark’s generous £75 a day only one had been recognised as fraudulent and stopped by his benefits office. Somehow the remainder had managed to keep claiming, despite not even being in the country.

(…)

Claiming unemployment benefit while conspiring against the host country appears to have become a key part of terrorist life in many Western nations. ‘British’ hate preacher Anjem Choudary was recorded in 2013 making mockery of Westerners who worked regular jobs and paid taxes, and called on Muslims to claim “Jihad Seekers Allowance” instead of working.

Lenin once said “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” Well, the modern welfare state will do you one better Vlad.

We’ll also give them the money to buy that rope.

That’ll show’em. smiley headbang wall

Footnote:
(1) Not all Muslims, of course. But far too many at least support imposing sharia and recreating the caliphate, even if they’re ambivalent about waging violent jihad to do it.


Thanks to progressivism, we’ve lost the “War on Poverty”

August 1, 2014
"Defeat"

“Defeat”

The War on Poverty was launched in 1964 under Lyndon Johnson with the best of intentions: through massive spending and extensive welfare programs, the government would eradicate poverty in America and make people self-sufficient. Like I said, a worthy goal.

It has also been an utter failure. In 1964 we declared war on poverty, and poverty won.

As the chart above shows, poverty was in deep, rapid decline in America after World War II without any government help, just the natural processes of a growing, prosperous economy. It looked well on its way to elimination, perhaps. Then, in the mid to late-60s, it leveled off and, save for an occasional bump up, has stayed right around fifteen percent.What happened?

In 1964, with the start of the War on Poverty, progressives and other economically illiterate do-gooders wound up trapping people in poverty, rather than helping them out of it. As Robert Rector at The Signal writes:

Johnson did not intend to put more Americans on the dole (1). Instead, he explicitly sought to reduce the future need for welfare by making lower-income Americans productive and self-sufficient.

By this standard, the War on Poverty has been a catastrophic failure. After spending more than $20 trillion on Johnson’s war, many Americans are less capable of self-support than when the war began. This lack of progress is, in a major part, due to the welfare system itself. Welfare breaks down the habits and norms that lead to self-reliance, especially those of marriage and work. It thereby generates a pattern of increasing inter-generational dependence. The welfare state is self-perpetuating: By undermining productive social norms, welfare creates a need for even greater assistance in the future. Reforms should focus on these programs’ incentive structure to point the way toward self-sufficiency. One step is communicating that the poverty rate is better understood as self-sufficiency rate—that is, we should measure how many Americans can take care of themselves and their families.

Emphasis added.

What was it Ronald Reagan said?

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'”

One would think that, faced with all the mounds of evidence that government programs don’t lift people out of poverty, Progressives, who claim to be devoted to “progress,” would see the war on poverty has been a failure and that the programs should be reformed or discontinued and something else tried, something like less government intervention.

But, no. Few ever will be that honest, because to say government failed to reorder society as desired would be to admit that the central tenet of progressivism, a faith in the power of technocrats to manage a vastly complex society, was wrong.

Meanwhile, that core 15% remains trapped in poverty, addicted to government “crack” and walking a road paved with good intentions.

PS: Note the sharp climb back up to 15% at the end of that chart. It starts soon after the Democrats take over Congress in 2006 and undo the 1990s Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform, then accelerates under Obama. Coincidence? I think not.

RELATED: Cato economist Dan Mitchell has often written on the same topic. Here’s a post he wrote on the failures of the War on Poverty and another on the “redistribution trap.” That latter is must-reading.

Footnote:
(1) Many criticize that assertion, with some justification. See for example Kevin Williamson’s “The Dependency Agenda.”

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#Obamacare success! New Medicaid enrollee turned down by 96 doctors

April 9, 2014
"Train wreck"

“Train wreck”

One of the oft-stated goals of the Affordable Care Act was insuring the uninsured. For those who couldn’t afford insurance even with the new subsidies, states could expand their Medicaid offerings with (temporary) help from the federal government (i.e., taxation and borrowing). Great, right? Even if you don’t make enough to afford private insurance, you still get medical care, right?

Not if the doctor refuses to take Medicare:

“I’m sorry, we are no longer accepting that kind of insurance. I apologize for the confusion; Dr. [insert name] is only willing to see existing patients at this time.”

As a proud new beneficiary of the Affordable Health Care Act, I’d like to report that I am doctorless. Ninety-six. Ninety-six is the number of soul crushing rejections that greeted me as I attempted to find one. It’s the number of physicians whose secretaries feigned empathy while rehearsing the “I’m so sorry” line before curtly hanging up. You see, when the rush of the formerly uninsured came knocking, doctors in my New Jersey town began closing their doors and promptly telling insurance companies that they had no room for new patients.

My shiny, never used Horizon health card is as effective as a dollar bill during the Great Depression. In fact, an expert tells CNN, “I think of (Obamacare) as giving everyone an ATM card in a town where there are no ATM machines.” According to a study 33% of doctors are NOT accepting Medicaid. Here in Jersey, one has a dismal 40 percent chance of finding a doctor who accepts Medicaid – the lowest in the country.

That insurance or Medicaid card does one a whole lot of good when no one will accept it, doesn’t it?

This is one aspect of a broader access problem that’s going to get more and more attention as we get deeper into the Obamacare morass. In addition to a growing doctor shortage (something that Obamacare may make worse), and shrinking provider networks, the limited number of doctors who accept Medicaid will only get smaller, because the system underpays for their services, and yet under Obamacare is greatly increasing the number of patients. Noble sentiments aside, a medical practice is a business, and a physician or hospital can only afford to see so many money-losing patients before it’s no longer worth staying in business.

Call it another of Obamacare’s broken promises: the government promises you medical care, but what if the care-provider refuses to play?

Of course, one would-be Democratic lawmaker in Virginia has a solution for that: serfdom.

Via Jim Geraghty, who notes it’s even harder to find specialists who take Obamacare.

RELATED: Bobby Jindal has a better idea.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,701 other followers