The Evils of Planned Parenthood

So now we know why Planned Parenthood refuses to talk moms out of aborting their babies: the organization is profiting by selling fetal arms, legs, and heads.

They are babies. They are little bodies and body parts of God's little creatures who will never even have a chance to live.  They have had that chance aborted.

Planned Parenthood makes, say, $500 for the abortion, and then $75 for arms, $75 for legs, $75 for heads, and $75 for bodies.  Put that together and you get a net profit of $800 per abortion.

That's enough money to keep the organization running regardless of how much taxpayer funds are going to pay for all this.

So, now let's address funding for planned parenthood.  According to cnsnews.com, "Planned Parenthood Got $540.6 Million in Government Grants in FY 2013."  According to factcheck.org, this revenue was only 45% of the organizations profits.  Likewise, only 3% of the total services offered in 2009 were abortions.

Of that 3%, no federal funds were was used to fund abortions, as the Hyde Amendment prevents the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother.

Of course recent events now have us wondering if any of these statistics are even accurate.

We learn the organization is now making revenue selling body parts at stemexpress.com. We know this because of some undercover videos that have come out where members of the organization have openly discussed, while drinking coffee or eating donuts or whatever, the art of carefully aborting the bodies without destroying priceless body parts.

On one of the videos, Holly O'Donnell, ex procurement tech for StemExpress, a Placervill, California, company, said: "For whatever we could procure, they would get a certain percentage. The main nurse was always trying to make sure we got our specimens. No one else really cared, but the main nurse did because she knew that Planned Parenthood was getting compensated. The harder and the more valuable the tissue, the more money you get. So if you can somehow procure a brain or a heart, you're gonna get more money."

One of the videos from the Center for Medical Progress is rather graphic, showing technicians using tweezers to pick through aborted tissue looking for body parts. When the person in the video appears to pluck out a pair of intact kidneys, a person off camera laughs and says, "Five Stars!"

McConnell describes Planned Parenthood's relationship with StemExpress.  She said, "StemExpress is a company that hires procurement techs to draw blood and dissect dead fetuses and sell the parts to researchers. They've partnered with Planned Parenthood and they get part of the money because we pay them to use their facilities. And they get paid from it. They do get some kind of benefit...If you can somehow procure a brain or a heart you're going to get more money than just Chorionic villi or umbilical cord."

She then went into further detail. She said: "I've never had anxiety before this at all. So I'm looking, and I don't know what's going on. I had no idea this is what's gonna happen happening, especially my first day. Literally she has tweezers and she's like, "Okay, well, this is the head, this is the arm, this is a leg." She hands them over, "Oh, here you go. Can you show me some of the parts I just showed you?" The moment I took the tweezers I put 'em in the dish, I remember grabbing a leg. And I said, "This is a leg," and the moment I picked it up I could just feel, like, death and pain. I never felt like that before, like shoot up through my body, and I started to... I blacked out."

A fifth video records a conversation with director of research at the Gulf Coast office, Melissa Farrell, who says, "If we alter a process and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this and splitting the specimens into different shipments as this. I mean, that's... It's all just a matter of line items."

Here she is talking about human body parts as though they are just things that can be sold.  This is exactly what slave owners thought of slaves prior to the Civil War.  This is exactly what Hitler thought of Jews. Today it's unborn and defenseless little babies that are being treated as things that can be owned, bought and sold. Farrell says this nonchalantly while having lunch at a restaurant.

Of course selling fetal tissue for a profit is illegal, and Planned Parenthood denies any of this is happening. Despite this, the Senate voted to continue forcing us to support this organization with our tax dollars whether we want to or not.

What's really amazing is the people who support Planned Parenthood are mainly liberals, the same people who run around saying that profit is bad, capitalism is bad, and black lives matter.  These are the same people who don't support capital punishment.  Then they support organizations like Planned Parenthood that perform abortions, and lie about what they do to the bodies.

So how do we know that they don't lie about how taxpayer money is used? So how can we believe our taxpayer dollars aren't being used to fund abortions? How can we be sure that the 55 million abortions said to have been performed since the 1973 Supreme Court is accurate?  How do we believe Planned Parenthood hasn't performed abortions that they don't report? How can we trust them? How can we continue to fund them with our money?

This is Planned Parent Hood.  It's a tax payer funded organization that participates in killing unborn babies, sucking any chance of life they had away from them.  It's an organization that every one of us is paying for even whether we want to or not, or whether we think what they do is abhorrent or not.

Further reading:

• Washington Post: Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood stalls in Senate
• Factcheck.com: Planned Parenthood
• CNSNews: Planned Parenthood got $540.6 million in government grants in FY 2013
• Rush Limbaugh: Future Generations Will Look Back and Wonder How This Country Lost Its Soul
  
• StemExpress.com
• Rush Limbaugh: We cry over the death of Cecil the Lion but shrug off Planned Parenthood
• Rush Limbaugth: 5th Video, and it gets worse

McDonald's tanking, and it's their own fault

This is what kids want in a Happy Meal

McDonald's sales have been tanking of late.  There have now been 14 straight months of flat or declining sales in the U.S., five straight quarters of negative growth, and stocks are falling. This resulted in the announcement that the companies 51 year old CEO, Donald Thompson, will retire.

It makes sense they should blame him, because it is his fault.  He was the leader of the company when it faced challenges from progressives who wanted to limit choices and make food healthy, boring, and un-fun.

Not this crap.

Vegans complained that they were making french fries with beef tallow, and so they caved and came up with other ingredients.  But the beef tallow was what made McDonald's french fries so great. And now no one wants to eat them. They do not taste the same.

McDonald's also caved on the issue of healthy Happy Meals.  They took out the fries, or made the size smaller, and inserted healthy apples instead.  They took out the pop and give parents a choice of chocolate milk and juice.  But kids can get apples at home.  Apples are just not fun.  They don't even give kids the choice of caramel to dip them in anymore either.  

This decision sealed their doom.  Sales have tanked ever since. I mean, who does McDonald's spend millions of dollars every year catering to? Yes, it's children. Studies show more kids recognize Ronald McDonald than Jesus.  Sad to say, but it's true. 

But not even a popular clown can sell food that is boring.  

Look! People don't go to McDonald's Restaurants to eat healthy.  I had a friend of mine who said to me once, "When you are dieting and you go to McDonald's, what do you eat?"  My answer was, "A Big Mac." 

There's nothing wrong with a fatty burger and french fries once in a while.  Plus it's a free country, and we have the natural right to eat unhealthy if we want.  We even have a natural right to make stupid choices, if that's what you think such choices are.

There are also other reasons for the demise of McDonald's.  For instance, they have tried to become everything to everybody.  Probably the biggest example of this is their attempt to compete in the coffee market.  But sometimes I go to McDonald's and have to wait for the attendant to make someones special coffee drink.  So all this specialization has compromised the call for speedy service.

But the main culprit is the appeasement of progressive demands to perfect society. When people cave to progressive demands to perfect society, they fail just like progressive programs always do.  Republicans who cave to progressive demands will likewise fail, which should explain why Jeb Bush and Chris Christie are trailing in early republican polls to Scott Walker, who is a fighter and does not compromise on key issues.

I'm no business expert, but I do have a Bachelor's Degree in Advertising/ Marketing.  Yet it takes no such degree to figure out what's wrong with McDonald's, and what they need to do fix the problem: they need to sell food that people want, not food people should eat. 

Everything is a crisis these days

This guy obviously needs the assistance of Big Mother Government

So a snowstorm, or blizzard, was expected to blow through the eastern states, and the media talked about it, even before it happened, as though it were the worst storm ever.  As it turned out, the extent of the storm was blown completely out of proportion.  Yet this comes as no surprise by those of us who already don't trust the media.

It was so overblown that both Connecticut and New Jersey banned road travel, and over 6,000 flights were cancelled. The government told people in many areas not to leave their homes.  It got so bad that in Bound Brook, New Jersey, police stopped teens who were snow shoveling work.  They were told by police that they had to stop.

One elderly person in the neighborhood reported the incident, saying, "Are you kidding me? Our generation does nothing but complain about his generation being lazy and not working for their money.  Here's a couple kids who take the time to print up flyers, walk door to door in the snow, and then shovel snow for some spending money. And someone calls the cops and they're told to stop?"

One of the officers later responded, claiming that that the kids weren't ticketed for soliciting work without a license, but were warned about being outdoors in dangerous weather conditions. He said, "We don't make the laws but we have to uphold them," he said Tuesday after reading some of the online comments about the incident. "This was a state of emergency. Nobody was supposed to be out on the road."

Look, snow is not a death sentence.  We're talking about people who have experienced 5,10,15,20,30, and probably even 40 inches of snow before.  These are not inexperienced dummies we're talking about.

These are people who have lived through short and long winters for their entire lives, generation after generation.  They know how to handle themselves in a snowstorm.  They known when to stay in and when to go out.  They know what is safe and unsafe.  

Yet here you have people in the media, in government agencies, who feel they have to create a panic. And I know the reason for it. It's because when people feel panicked they act panicked. They rush to the stores and buy all the items in them. That's why all the stores shelves in New York are empty today. It's because the media and the government created a panic.  

This is progressivism at full steam.  This is how they get their agendas through to the people: by creating panics and wars.  When the people feel panicked, they call to the government for help.  

And even when they don't, the government assumes the people are stupid and only they know what to do.  So they tell people to stay inside, to not do anything, to shop for food and other materials that aren't needed, and to hoard them for a storm than might not even be close to as bad as expected.  

And even if it is as bad as expected, it's nothing these people haven't experienced before.  They will survive.  A panic is not in order here. But everything to these people is worse than it is, and it's for a reason.  

To make matters worse, weather men and women think that they have to stand outside in the conditions that are supposed to be to cold and dangerous for us just to prove that it really is cold outside.  But all people have to do is look outside and they can see for themselves that it's cold out.

They think they have to tell us when it's safe and when it's not safe to go outside.  Yet any person who lives in cold regions of the U.S., places that get snow every winter, knows when it's too cold to go outside.  We don't need the media, and we don't need Uncle Sam telling us how what we can and cannot do.  We are not stupid.  

Why do uneducated people become liberals

So we have people out there saying things like: "I hate politics. All people do is fight." They hate politics. They tune politics out.  When you send them something political in an email, they either respond with antipathy, or they say things like "quit sending me all that political junk?"  But these are exactly the people we need to reach with our conservative or libertarian message.

These are the people who say they don't pay attention to politics, but when you say something political they get all upset.  When you tell them that global warming is a hoax, they get all upset. When you tell them that Obama's number of 200,000 new jobs created every month is not good, they say you are a racist.  So they say they are not political, that they don't pay attention, but they still take sides; and they still get angry.

You know, if you ask me, if I was uninformed about something, I certainly wouldn't take sides.  I also wouldn't get angry, because people who are truly uninformed about something surely have no need to get upset about it.  So something is amess with these people who say they hate politics, and they don't take sides, and they don't follow the news, yet they still get upset when you share your ideas that are the antithesis of theirs.

The truth is, if I were uninformed on an issue, of which there are many issues I'm uninformed on, I'd be open minded and listen to all arguments without getting upset. I wouldn't be a liberal by default, I'd be neither liberal nor republican. I'd be bipartisan, at least until I had all the facts on the table. Then I'd sift through the facts, and I'd make a decision based on the facts.

Truth be told, I don't see why an bipartisan, or an independent voter, or a person who didn't pay attention to politics, would get upset about any political view.  So, the logical conclusion here is that the person is lying, that he is truly partisan, and most likely a liberal with his head in the sand because he's embarrassed to admit it.

But, lacking knowledge of politics because, as they admittedly say, they don't pay attention, they, by default, form an opinion based on their feelings, their heart, instead of their head.  They, by default, fall for the dream world politics of liberalism/ progressivism/ socialism.  Of course if you ask them if they are liberals, they will deny it tooth and nail.

These are exactly the types of people we need to continue to inform, even if it ticks them off.  In the meantime, they will continue to complain that "I hate politics.  I hate that people don't get along.  I just want people to get along.  I want them to get along and compromise."

Yet what they don't realize is that the liberal definition of compromise is "do it my way."

Liberals don't want to compromise.  They only see the dream, the end goal, and so any other information, fact or other, is the antithesis of what they want to hear.

So they reject it tooth and nail.  They refuse to listen to your facts, because the truth hurts.

By telling them the truth, by educating them, you are in fact hurting their feelings.

And, lacking any political wisdom, this all makes sense.  So they continue to tune you out and get ticked when you try to educate them.

To them, global warming is not politics, it's science.  Even though science is based on educated guesses -- mankind is making the climate change --, they don't care. To them this is all fact.  They don't want to hear anything about the natural cycle of events, or the natural cycle of warming and cooling, warming and cooling, warming and cooling.

To them that's too complex to understand.  So when you tell them global warming is a hoax, they tell you that you are ignorant.  They tell you you are stupid and blind.  However, what they don't ever do is present you with facts to back up their statements because there are none.  They do not study politics, so how could they obtain facts.

So that brings me back to my point.  If they do not study politics, if they do not read the news, if they do not listen to the facts, if they do not search for the truth, then how can they take sides?  How could a person who hates politics, wants nothing to do with it, become a liberal, let alone a conservative?  It makes no sense to me?

How could a person who has never studied politics a day in his life tell me that I'm a racist and bigot because of my conservative views, when he has never studied politics, and probably has no clue what my argument is, or what my evidence is, because he refuses to listen to it.  He might hear it but he never listens to it.  

It's perplexing.

After the great mystery of the father, son and spirit, this might be the second biggest mystery of all time: why someone could become a liberal by default when they lack any knowledge at all about politics.

But it does make sense, because liberalism is based on a dream.  And when you compare a dream with reality, the dream will win out every time.

Denver students protest American Capitalism

Hundreds of student protesters walked out of class in Denver, Colorado's largest school district, on Tuesday, September 23, to protest capitalism and Americanism. They walked out of class because because, as protesters said, they are being "propagandized with pro-American themes."

They were protesting because of a school board proposal to only provide instructional materials that present positive aspects of the nation and its heritage.  It would establish a committee to regularly review texts and course plans, starting with Advanced Placement history, to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights' and don't 'encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."

Now this kind of thing would be unheard of after WWII, when patriotism was at its highest. It's the kind of thing that was not needed because it's what American parents wanted, expected.  You expected teachers to teach patriotism.  You wanted them to teach American history.

You wanted them to teach patriotism. You wanted them to teach the benefits of capitalism, because that was the only system historically proven to allow those kids to take risks and have the opportunity to make something of themselves someday.

Capitalism is the only system that will allow these kucklehead kids to take chances. Socialism, the only alternative, and what liberalism and progressivism is based upon, only allows people dibs on other people's money (called taxes) that you can take and use as your own, but their is no pride in knowing that you succeeded on your own, if you actually do find success.

Usually only the priviledged few succeed in a socialist nation, while anyone can find success, if they are willing to take chances, in a capitalist nation like the United States.

So parents used to just assume this kind of stuff was taught in American schools, and now it has to be written.  And when it is written people who lack knowledge of our history are out there protesting it.    

It used to be expected that you would teach the truth about American history.  It used to be that parents and students were proud of their heritage, and proud of their country.  

Obama trying to use UN to force liberal agenda on world

As a former journalist who has kept up his skills in the blogosphere, I have for you a perfect example of journalism bias. It comes from Coral Davenport at the New York Times in her article "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Leiu of Treaty."

First she states the facts:

The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

The ultimate goal here is to punish countries who do not conform to the law, if it is passed, or to shame them into complying.  In other words, either you conform to the progressive agenda or you will be shamed and ridiculed until you do.

But then she goes on to blame republicans as the reason Obama is forced into such action.  She said:

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

For 30 years people have been claiming that mankind is causing global warming, and yet there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998.  Because global warming has been disproved by said facts, they have changed the name of their theory to "climate change."  It appears they have too much invested in the myth to just give up on it now.

There is politics behind the myth, because if democrats can convince the world that humans are causing "global cooling" or "global warming" or "climate change," then perhaps they can use this "fear" to push forth their political agenda, which mainly results in more regulations and taxes that take away personal liberties and make nations poorer.

It appears that the only force against Obama's charge to force nations to accept global warming are republicans and poor countries.  However, once progressives like Obama get their way, all countries will be poor, as the only way to create equality, the progressive goal, is to redistribute wealth, thus eliminating the upper class.

It appears republicans and poor countries are the only folks who know the facts in this case, or at least care to heed the facts.  Coral Davenport is yet another journalist who fails to study history, learn the facts, nor report the truth.  She is yet another journalist who fails to comply with rule #1 of journalism: "report the truth, keep your opinion out of your writing."