Planned Parenthood vs. US House Oversight Committee:

Cecile Richards, President of the federally funded organization Planned Parenthood, came to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform yesterday in defense of the organization and in light of a series of extremely disturbing videos from the Center for Medical Progress.

From her own testimony to the Oversight committee, Richards stated that  Planned Parenthood, with a “99- year history,” is “a leading provider of high-quality reproductive health care in the United States” with “more than 10,000 people who work at Planned Parenthood’s national office and 59 affiliates” providing “high-quality health care and information with compassion and a deep commitment to women’s health, well-being, and dignity.”

Federal funding for ‘lucrative’ salary

But Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Oversight committee, was not persuaded by her words, according to various reports on the matter. FoxNews is highlighting points Chaffetz is making. One point being that “Obamacare makes federal funding for Planned Parenthood duplicative,” due to the facts that “HHS identifies Title X as a service for ‘low-income or uninsured individuals” and “[u]nder Obamacare, individuals should be getting their health care via Medicaid or a Qualified Health Plan.”

What might also be a problem for some, is the big salary being paid to President Richards and other top tier Planned Parenthood executives, which is described as “lucrative” in the Fox story, and many Americans might agree if they knew that right after the U.S. financial crisis of 2008, President Richards was doing well. In fact, it seems “[f]rom 2009 to 2013, Planned Parenthood and its related organizations paid President Cecile Richards more than $2.47 million,… which includes $590,928 for 2013.”

Other media raised objections to Richards and Planned Parenthood as well. Pro-life website CharismaNews in fact, raised an important point from Richards’ testimony. “… Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards confirms that some Planned Parenthood affiliates sell the body parts of aborted babies. In her testimony, Ms. Richards states, ‘Planned Parenthood is proud of its limited role in supporting fetal tissue research.'”

Richards has never refuted the video footage from the Center for Medical Progress it seems. The piece in Charisma News points that out, and there is a post at theAmericanSpectator reflecting on “…a 1926 speech to the KKK by one of their most revered ideological darlings, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.”

Huh?

The information on Sanger’s connection with the KKK, written by , states that Sanger openly wrote about this “… in her 1938 autobiography published by W.W. Norton, one of the leading New York publishing houses.”

“One might ask,” Kengor writes, “why would the KKK be so interested in Ms. Sanger? The reasons are obvious, a natural fit.”

In considering the time period of Sanger and of her contemporaries who wanted to make “racial improvement,” we need only recall Adolf Hitler’s genocidal activities during World War II and “…the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who declared that ‘[t]hree generations of imbeciles are enough,'” according to Kengor.

Sanger, the Planned Parenthood founder, “… lamented America’s ‘race of degenerates'” Kengor states. She felt a need to purge the national landscape of its “human weeds” and “the dead weight of human waste.” Sanger believed these people included the “feeble-minded,” the “insane,” and the just plain “idiots.” Apparently, they felt the need to refine the human “gene-pool,” according to Kengor.

Sanger wanted to “Create a Race of Thoroughbreds,” and, as she wrote to Dr. Clarence Gamble, one of her “Negro Project collaborators, on December 10, 1939: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Kengor quotes in his article.

By the way, there is also 13 minute long video from the Center for Bioethical Reform which “… shows the birth of what CBR describes as a ’17 1/2 week fetus,’ according to a report by John Sexton over at Breitbart. “The Center for Bioethical Reform, in partnership with the Grantham collection, has released the full version of a video which became a source of political controversy after the 2nd Republican debate.”

Underneath a “graphic content” warning, comes the description that a fetus “… is placed in a metal pan with a clamp attached to its umbilical cord.” Sexton writes that the source video (available with a warning over at  You Tube. You can get the link at the above Breitbart reference.)

Secton also states that “… a comparison demonstrates the new video is the source of the brief segment that appeared in a video produced by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), a pro-life investigatory group which has produced undercover videos critical of Planned Parenthood.”

So, the ongoing fury in the nation just seems a perfect opportunity for those “teachable moments”  all of us human beings might stop to ponder. Does the video seem to buttress the sentiments of one 2016 Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina? She has taken such grief for her last debate remarks on the matter of the videos and Planned Parenthood, including an assault during a speech by some Planned Parenthood supporters in Iowa, per theHill. Per the story by Jonathan Easley, Fiorina is supporting the notion of defunding Planned Parenthood, “… and has said congressional Republicans should take the fight to the White House, even if it results in a government shutdown.”

“I believe this is something we must stand up and fight for,” Easley quotes Fiorina, who also said she believes the federal giveaway of taxpayer money is like “a political slush fund” for Planned Parenthood.

UN: Putin reprimands US in Iraq, Libya for rise of ‘terrorists’

President Vladimir Putin, in his address to the many gathered world representatives Monday on the topic of “Countering Violent Extremism” at the United Nations in New York, included a pointed question:

“Do you realize now what you’ve done?”

The Russian leader’s question, aimed at the United States mostly it seemed, came from a belief that U.S. involvement in Iraq and Libya had fostered a power vacuum filled with “extremists and terrorists,” according to writer Stephen Collinson over at CNN.

In the remarks given by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the theUN Headquarters, the Secretary-General was clear. “We have a major challenge before us – one that will not disappear overnight — but one that we can address concretely by forging societies of inclusion, ensuring lives of dignity, and pursuing this essential endeavour inspired at all times by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Previously, the UN leader also told the gathered members that “[w]e know violent extremism flourishes when human rights are violated, aspirations for inclusion are ignored, and too many people — especially the world’s young people with their hopes and dreams — lack prospects and meaning in their lives.”

Russian buildup in Syria

In President Barack Obama’s speech, write DeYoung and Eilperin over at the WashingtonPost, “Obama took direct aim at Russia’s military buildup in Syria as well as its support for Ukrainian separatists, saying, ‘We are told that such retrenchment is required to beat back disorder, that it’s the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent foreign meddling. But I stand before you today believing in my core that we, the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion. We cannot look backward. . . . And if we cannot work together more effectively, we will all suffer the consequences.’”

Later on, in what has been called “95 minutes of nyet,” according to James Carden who quotes the Associated Press’ pool reporter in his report for theNation, Putin and Obama met together privately.

Likely the behind-closed-doors meeting was time spent in back-and-forth remarks of similar stuff and more disagreement. Writer’s Juliet Eilperin and Karen DeYoung believe that while Putin’s speech blamed the U.S. for the turmoil in the region, President Barack Obama’s message to the assembled in New York also seemed to place criticism on the Russian President.

’95 minutes of nyet’

Did they simply repeat their thoughts in the private meeting, the so-called “95 minutes of nyet?” Both leaders seemed to embrace “a foreign policy approach that respects international norms” which are “essential to global stability” according to the media reactions. Putin and Obama meeting behind closed doors for more than an hour and a half perhaps did yield a better understanding. When Putin left for Moscow after the event, he apparently gave brief comments to reporters: “Regretfully,” Putin is quoted as describing relations between Russia and the U.S., “[we’re] at a rather low level….” The Russian leader attributed it to U.S. resistance apparently.

He did add this, however:

“We now have an understanding that our work needs to be strengthened, at least on the bilateral basis. We are now thinking together on the creation of appropriate mechanisms.”

Body language

Those who were watching the unspoken body language expressions had more to add on the matter. From Dr. David Givens in the theGuardian, he pinpointed what behaviors he decided were most interesting from the leaders.

“Obama’s very visible leaning and angling away from Putin,” was observed by Givens. “The key emotion in these latter, evasive body postures was, seemingly, an unvoiced wish to separate.”

In watching Putin, Givens saw interesting nonverbal messaging. “Putin’s avoidance of eye contact and reigned-in hand gestures, for example, made him come across as if he were a defensive high school student with a secret.”

Sanctions from the US

And the day following the UN speeches, USnews reports that the U.S. Treasury and the State Department have announced “… sanctions against people associated with the Islamic State group a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin called out the United States for not acting aggressively enough to curb the extremist organization’s participation in the global financial system.”

Putin’s speech at the UN reprimanded the U.S. for “turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the proceeds of drug trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms,” according to the article.

Donald Trump unveils big tax plan, defends immigration ideas

“Revolution is easy, governing is hard,” said Scott Pelley to billionaire businessman and 2016 Presidential Candidate Donald Trump on the CBS weekend show 60 Minutes. “And what I’d like to get to is how you intend to govern the country if you are elected president. What’s your tax plan?”

Trump seemed content to explain his idea to Pelley and millions of potential voters. (Note: If anyone is interested in seeing the plan, it is posted over at DonaldJTrump.) “It’s a substantial reduction for the middle-income people. Because our middle class, Scott, is being absolutely decimated. It will be a corporate also reduction, I think it’ll be a great incentive for corporations.”

Pelley wanted to know then who Trump planned to raise taxes on in order to help the middle class and corporations, of course.

Incentivizing, growing the economy

“… some very wealthy are going to be raised,” answered Trump. “Some people that are getting unfair deductions are going to be raised. But, overall, it’s going to be a tremendous incentive to grow the economy and we’re going to take in the same or more money. And I think we’re going to have something that’s going to be spectacular.”

“But Republicans don’t raise taxes,” Pelley objected.

“Well, we’re not raising taxes,” replied Trump.

Pelley asked what many viewers at home were likely asking then. “What kind of Republican are you?”

Of course, Trump is a businessman first, but he replied to the question. “… well, I’m a pretty good Republican. But, I will tell you this, I do have some differences. I don’t want to have certain people on Wall Street get away with paying no tax.”

‘Too few Americans working’

Trump’s website introduces the goals of his tax plan very simply by stating “[t]oo few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas, and too many middle class families cannot make ends meet.”

Pelley wanted more information however, on the plan. “It’s time to tell the folks at home the details of what you intend to do.”

“I know. I know,” replied Trump. “I will say this, there will be a large segment of our country that will have a zero rate, a zero rate. And that’s something I haven’t told anybody.” He followed that statement with this one about an actual exemption for people from paying taxes: “We’re talking about people in the low-income brackets that are supposed to be paying taxes, many of them don’t anyway.”

Trump believes he can change things enough that lower income folks will have money to spend on what they need, instead of paying taxes, it seems. Pelley brought up Trump’s statement about lowering corporate income tax too and said “… but there’s a $19 trillion federal debt.”

Trump agreed with him. “That’s right. We’re gonna grow the economy so much–”

But Pelley protested then. “You can’t afford to do those things–”

Selling the Trump plan to voters

John Hayward, over at Breitbart, has pondered the tax proposal from Trump. He thinks Trump should just push the idea of prosperity for more people. “If I were advising Trump, I would tell him to defend his zero percent tax rate by claiming America would prosper so much under his proposals that hardly anyone would be making a measly $25k per year. He could also usefully point out that even the most dramatic tax reform proposals, such as the Flat Tax and Fair Tax, have some sort of exemption that effectively knocks low income earners off the bottom of the tax rolls – an income exemption for the Flat Tax, sales-tax breaks for necessities under the Fair Tax.”

Immigration system fix

Beyond the economy and taxes, Pelley also brought up Trump’s notions on how to deal with the broken immigration system. “So I want to build our country,” said Trump. “Our country’s been decimated. We have spent so much money in the Middle East and other places. We– our roads are falling apart, our bridges are falling apart. Everything’s falling apart. We have to rebuild our country.”

Trump insisted that people who came to the country were welcome, but “… they have to come here legally. And you know, when I talk about the wall, and I said it before, we’re going to have a tremendous, beautiful, wide-open door. Nice, big door. We want people to come into the country.”

But Pelley did want to know about a previous statement Trump made. “Are you serious about deporting 12 million illegal immigrants?”

“Well, nobody knows the number,” Trump said, “but the answer is– you just said it, they’re illegal immigrants. They’re here illegally.” Trump added later that he would first actually better define the border by building a wall. “First of all, I have to start a little bit differently. We’re going to build a wall and we’re going to create a border.”

On this, Pelley said [l]et’s assume your wall has gone up” and that 12 million illegal immigrants are still in the country, “what do you do?”

Trump replied that “[i]f  they’ve done well they’re going out and they’re coming back in legally.” The businessman insisted that these immigrants were going to be relieved to finally be “legalized.”

Pelley said it didn’t seem “practical.”

Trump insisted differently. “It is practical. It’s going to work.”

 

 

Advertising:




Dr. Ben Carson: showing momentum and wisdom

Dr. Ben Carson is gaining momentum on GOP frontrunner candidate Donald Trump, according to various reports released this week, and what he is saying may be resonating with the American public being polled incessantly by organizations obsessed with who will be the nominee for this party.

In an interview with Dr. Carson, the increasingly popular neurosurgeon and 2016 Presidential candidate, by CNN’s Jake Tapper on the program State of the Union, a clip was played from another interview on whether or not Carson “believe[s] that Islam is consistent with the constitution?”

And Carson then answered in the clip: “No, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”

So, Tapper than hits the doctor up with this: “He didn’t ask you about Islam, if you thought Islam was consistent with the Constitution, and you said Muslims, that you would have a problem with a Muslim being president.”

Calmly, Carson replied “I would have problems with somebody who embraced all the doctrines associated with Islam. If they’re not willing to reject, you know, sharia and all the portions of it that are talked about in the Koran, if they’re not willing to reject that and subject that to American values and the Constitution, then of course I wouldn’t. And I would ask you, would you be willing to do that? Would you be willing to advocate for somebody that would not do that. Probably not.”

In response, Tapper answered “I don’t assume that because somebody’s Muslim that hey would put their religion ahead of the U.S. Constitution. And in fact the U.S. Constitution itself says no religious test.”

Carson then pushed back at Tapper’s use of the Chuck Todd’s interview snippet. “Yes, except that I had already said, before that, that anybody from any religion, from any background, if they are — I told you what the criteria were for that. I told Chuck Todd what the criteria for — so he’s asking this out of that context.”

The conversation was good. Tapper saying that the doctor seemed to be “… singling out Muslims as individuals who automatically, as a kneejerk, would put their religion ahead of the country…” and then Carson replying “I think the statement stands. Is it possible that maybe the media thinks that it’s a bigger deal than the American people do?”

Sharia and Muslims

The candidate also mentioned, following that exchange, the fact that he he has not only worked with Muslims, but he also has trained and operated upon Muslims. “I know a lot of Muslims who are very patriotic, good Americans. And they gladly admit, at least privately, that they don’t accept sharia or the doctrines and they understand that Islam is a system of living and it includes the way that you relate to the government, and you cannot, unless you specifically deny that portion of Islam, be a Muslim in good standing.”

For those who never have heard about Sharia before this conversation, a 2013 story in the HuffingtonPost written by Omar Sacirbey states this:

“There are two sources of Shariah: The Quran, which many Muslims consider to be the literal word of God; and the “Sunnah,” the divinely guided tradition of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.” In further statements, Sacirbey does write that Shariah punishments can be harsh, but these “have been taken out of context, abrogated, or require a near-impossible level of evidence to be carried out.”

As an example then, if someone is convicted of adultery, Sacirbey states “…there must be four witnesses to the act, which is rare. The Quran also prescribes amputating the hands of thieves, but (and this is often forgotten or unmentioned) not if the thief has repented.”

It is not clear if an adulterer is allowed to repent after four people who claim to have witnessed the act by the accused have testified. In this day and age, is video evidence allowed? Gathering four people to simply identify the individual, whomever is the defendant seen in a video, should not be difficult in this day and age with the technology available.

Sacirbey also states in the HuffPo piece that some “… Shariah scholars say such a punishment system can only be instituted in a society of high moral standards and where everyone’s needs are met (thereby obviating the urge to steal or commit other crimes). In such a society, the thinking goes, corporal punishments would be rarely needed.”

Revelations, lies and poll numbers

An interesting point is being made now over at the site pjmedia, regarding  the Presidential race and an observation on Sharia. It now seems “… unlikely that Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee.  Not only is he a weak fifth (at 7%) in the just released NBC/WSJ poll, Republicans, as of now anyway,  just don’t like him. In a new Fox News poll, he has a net favorability rating (like/dislike) among GOP voters of a measly one percent.”

The so-called “political outsiders,” Dr. Carson included in the group, have better favorability ratings. Carson, the article points out, has “…an unprecedented +52 [rating].”

And this is the point of the pjmedia report: “… voters have liked Dr. Carson from the beginning for his life story and his authenticity.  But lately he has shown more than that.  His statement that he would not support a Muslim for president — and then giving his reasons, specifically that sharia law with its legislated misogyny and homophobia, not to mention immutable fusion of church and state,  is in direct contradistinction to our Constitution — has highlighted issues for the electorate that no other candidate has thus far dared to raise, at least to the level that Carson has.”

Candidate Carson, an educated and successful black man in America, takes on “willful blindness” according to story and  “… is talking seriously about substantive ideological issues like taqiyya – the principle in both Shia and Sunni  versions of sharia law allowing Muslims to lie to non-Muslims for the advancement of Islam — that rarely are discussed in political campaigns (or, for that matter, in Iran negotiations).”

 

Carly Fiorina says Americans are ‘horrified’ and defends her remarks on Planned Parenthood

“This is happening in America today,” Presidential candidate and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina told Chuck Todd on MeetthePress this morning.

Todd, in introducing the question about “the Planned Parenthood situation,” per the NBC transcript, stated that there was “no tape” of what she referred to in the debate this month. “Are you now willing to concede that you exaggerated that scene?”

Fiorina pushed back. “No, not at all. That scene absolutely does exist. And that voice saying what I said they were saying, ‘We’re going to keep it alive to harvest its brain’ exists as well.”

And further, Fiorina believes the organization is “… trying to distract the American people from the hideous reality that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses alive to harvest their brains and other body parts. That is a fact. Planned Parenthood will not and cannot deny this because it is happening. It is happening in this nation. And taxpayers are paying for it. Planned Parenthood desperately wants everyone to think this isn’t going on. Because when Americans realize it is going on, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, they are horrified. This goes to the character of our nation and it must be stopped.”

Some in the media suggest, such as Casey Quinlan in her piece for ThinkProgress, that Fiorina is perhaps misunderstanding the use of stock images in the re-telling on these investigative videos made by the Center for Medical Progress. A former tissue procurement technician tells of her experience. Todd, in his interview, told Fiorina “[w]ell, the footage you describe at best is a reenactment.”

Regardless of whether or not it was a “reenactment” video, per CNN even some House Democrats are saying that the Planned Parenthood officials who are clearly seen in the videos “… should have been more careful with their language,” and perhaps the casual talk on the subject “… could be misinterpreted.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, hello!

NASA says BloodRed SuperMoon can be seen on sept 27, 201S

“On the night of September 27th, 2015, a supermoon lunar ecllipse will be viewable in the night sky for those living in North and South America. Those living in Europe and Africa can view it in the early morning hours of September 28th,” according to a NASA post.

The folks at SCIENTIFICamerican have re-posted writer Mike Wall’s explanation that “… the moon will once again become immersed in the Earth’s shadow, resulting in a total lunar eclipse─the fourth such event in the last 17 months….”

“As with all lunar eclipses, the region of visibility for Sunday’s blood-moon lunar eclipse will encompass more than half of our planet. Nearly 1 billion people in the Western Hemisphere, nearly 1.5 billion throughout much of Europe and Africa and perhaps another 500 million in western Asia will be able to watch as the Harvest Full Moon becomes a shadow of its former self and morphs into a glowing coppery ball.”

Advertising: