VIDEO: Young woman proudly talks about aborting baby – w/ “responsibility” poster in background

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

You really cannot make this up:

In case you don’t care to sit through the video, the young woman talks about how she had gotten pregnant, had a baby, and got pregnant again 9 months later and didn’t have the money to raise another baby, and struggled to find the money to abort her second child.

I pray for young women like this one, that they one day see the light.

Courtesy of the pro-teen sex site “Advocates for Youth” by way of the “1 in 3 Campaign” – a campaign designed to encourage women to “come out of the closet” and feel no shame about their abortion(s) since allegedly, according to the 1 in 3 Campaign, 1 in 3 women “will have an abortion in their lifetime.”

BTW, the fireworks have started as LifeNews reported today that Congress will be investigating Planned Parenthood:

A Congressional committee has taken the first steps in investigating the Planned Parenthood abortion business over abuses ranging from financial disparities to its compliance with federal regulations on taxpayer funding to concerns that it is covering up cases of sex trafficking.

In a September 15 letter LifeNews.com obtained, Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican who is the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Investigations, writes to Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.

“Pursuant to Rules X and XI of the United States House of Representatives, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is examining the institutional practices and policies of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and its affiliates, and its handing of federal funding,” Stearns writes. “That Committee has questions about the politics in place and actions undertaken by PPFA and its affiliates relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion.”

Make sure to read the full article.

As you can expect, Democrats are outraged:

Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Diana DeGette of Colorado, both Democrats, responded to the Stearns letter with their own missive dated today complaining about the broad reach of the investigation and the documents requested, which they call “far-reaching.”

“We question the basis for the investigation and whether Planned Parenthood is being singled out as part of a Republican vendetta,” the Democrats claim, saying the request for extensive financial and policy documents is “extraordinarily broad and burdensome.”

“The letter asks Planned Parenthood and all 83 of its affiliates for internal audit reports covering up to a 12-year period, for state audits covering a 20-year-period, for detailed information about any improper billing, and for sensitive information about the services and referral practices of Planned Parenthood affiliates and clinics,” the letter reads. “We are aware of no predicate that would justify this sweeping and invasive request to Planned Parenthood.”

They claim previous audits by the HHS Inspector General and state Medicaid programs “have not identified any pattern of misuse of federal funds, illegal activity, or any other abuse that would justify a broad and invasive congressional investigation.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if they put as much passion into defending the lives of the unborn rather than protecting the “rights” of mothers of unborn children to terminate that life? Sigh …

Gov. Perdue’s office says her suggestion to suspend Cong. elections was only “hypberbole”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

The Raleigh News and Observer’s “Under the Dome” blog reports on curious remarks made by our Democrat Governor Bev. Perdue on the state of the economy – and one possible way to ‘fix’ it (via Daily Caller):

Speaking to a Cary rotary club today, N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue suggested suspending Congressional elections for two years so that Congress can focus on economic recovery and not the next election.

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that,” Perdue said. “You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

The comment — which came during a discussion of the economy — perked more than a few ears. It’s unclear whether Perdue, a Democrat, is serious — but her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea.

Later Tuesday afternoon, Perdue’s office clarified the remarks: “Come on,” said spokeswoman Chris Mackey in a statement. “Gov. Perdue was obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem: Washington politicians who focus on their own election instead of what’s best for the people they serve.”

Read her full remarks below.

“You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It’s a little bit more contentious now but it’s not impossible to try to do what’s right in this state. You want people who don’t worry about the next election.”

I’ll give the Governor the benefit of the doubt on not really being serious about suspending Congressional elections next year. After all, she could have really gone for the gusto and pushed to suspend statewide elections (which would impact her, considering she’s running for re-election) as well as the Presidential election – which would obviously benefit her party seeing as a suspension of that would keep our celebrity WH resident in the Oval Office for another two miserable years. However, even with that benefit of the doubt, it’s not really something an elected official should even hint around at – especially one in the postion of power of a Governor. Bryan Preston adds:

Save democracy…by killing democracy. What a novel concept.

[…]

On facebook, Gov. Purdue’s desperate staff claim she was engaging in hyperbole. And just in case we’re all too stupid to get that, they define it for us.

Hyperbole (n): an exaggeration to create emphasis or effect

by Bev Perdue on Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 1:54pm

There has been a little hubbub today about some comments the governor made at lunch today.

Here’s a statement from Press Secretary Chris Mackey:

“Come on…Gov. Perdue was obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem: Washington politicians who focus on their own election instead of what’s best for the people they serve.”

One, thanks for condescending (y’all might want to look that word up). Two, musing about canceling elections when you’re up for one next year isn’t funny. Three, it really isn’t funny. Now, go lose next year.

Seconded!

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee: conservative bloggers should “shut up” and “buy American” should be “buy African-American”

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

I’m glad to see she’s against playing racial politics:

While speaking with Tavis Smiley of PBS, Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee said conservative bloggers should “shut up” and “stop playing racial politics.”

This from a member of the caucus that does little else but play the race card.

Seconds later, Jackson Lee went on to say that buy American should be “buy African American.”

She also said that if Obama’s jobs bill is passed, that contractors who “do not look like” her need to make sure that if they get federal money, their workforce “better be reflective of those suffering double-digit unemployment.”

“I don’t consider it discrimination, I don’t consider it affirmative action,” she added.

No, it’s just a bit of ethnic strong-arming. “Nice business you have there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

Roger L. Simon is right: the Congressional Black Caucus should be disbanded. Far from fighting racism, they exploit it for personal gain and in the process harm the very constituency they claim to serve. (Although in Jackson-Lee’s case, I doubt she’s smart enough to know what she’s doing.)

By the way, Sheila, this conservative blogger does not plan to shut up. But you can take your racial grievance pandering and shove it.

via Clarice Feldman

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

How our tax system punishes saving and rewards consumption

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

Economists and financial writers regularly bemoan our low savings rate in the US. But one big reason why our savings are so minimal is our tax system, which encourages spending and discourages savings and investment by the double taxation of income. This chart from Dan Mitchell illustrates the problem:

(Click here for a larger image)

In short, if you spend your after-tax earnings, no problem. You’re only taxed the one time. But, if you invest that income in productive activities that help expand the economy and provide for your future security, the government takes more and more and more, even after you’re dead.

In other words, the tax system is biased toward giving government money and away from real prosperity.

Have a look at Mitchell’s post for a fuller explanation.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Forget “Where’s Waldo.” Where’s Muhammad?

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

**Posted by Phineas

I bet this news from PJM’s Patrick Poole will make you all feel safe and secure:

Two Bangladeshis who were caught by Customs and Border Protection illegally crossing the border in June 2010 admitted under questioning that they were members of a designated terrorist organization that signed on to a fatwa by Osama bin Laden pledging to wage war against Americans.

But amazingly, after one of the men requested asylum, he was released on bond. And now one Homeland Security official tells me, concerning the released terror operative, “We don’t have the slightest idea where he is now.”

The two men, Muhammad Nazmul Hasan and Mirza Muhammad Saifuddin, were intercepted near Naco, Arizona, not long after they had crossed the border on June 25, 2010. During their interrogation, one of the men admitted that they were members of Harakat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B), which was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in February 2008. Earlier this month the group claimed responsibility for a bombing a courthouse in New Delhi. That attack killed 11 and wounded at least 45 others.

(Emphasis added.)

Reading this, one’s first reaction is probably a hearty “WTF?” and some choice words about the competence of the Border Patrol and the courts for allowing an admitted terrorist to walk on bail, something that defies common sense.

But it’s not the agencies’ actions that run contrary to wisdom, but the law itself. While Poole doesn’t go into detail about the relevant laws, I’m willing to bet existing statutes, reflecting a pre-September 11th mentality that treats terrorism as a law-enforcement problem, left the CBP and the court with little choice — once the Bangladeshi jihadist invoked the laws of asylum, the relevant officials were obliged to obey them. And because no one is mandated to keep track of asylum-seekers out on bail, this Al Qaeda ally walked out the door and vanished into an Arizona sunset, never to be heard from again, until… ?

More than ten years after 9/11, it’s way past the time that our laws were updated to reflect a time of war and potentially catastrophic terrorism. At a minimum, people who admit to belonging to organizations allied to our deadly enemy should be held without bail; more properly, since we’re dealing with terrorist operatives, they should be transferred to military custody and their cases decided by a military commission. We’re not talking about people sneaking into America looking for a better life; these are people sneaking into America to take lives.

As Poole points out, the southern border is the preferred route for people seeking illegal entry into the United States, and, regardless of what President Obama claims, that border is not secure. It’s clear Obama and the Democrats won’t do a thing to genuinely control it, in spite of the obvious threat to national security (1), so it will be up to the next, hopefully adult, administration.

Meanwhile, don’t worry. I’m sure we’ll find the missing Bangladeshi jihadi… right after the car-bomb goes off.

Footnote:
(1) You know, that thing that really is one of the assigned duties of the federal government. But they have more important things to do, like regulating which light bulbs you can buy.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)