Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching an Abortion Procedure

(h/t: Breitbart)

For additional information, see KBTX's local story.

Planned Parenthood's scare tactics make this story even more fascinating. They currently have a temporary restraining order against Ms. Johnson and are in the process of seeking a permanent injunction. I understand and agree that the patients' names and contact information should be kept confidential. After all, even Ms. Johnson acknowledges this. But the restraining order and injunction seem to cloak the universe of information Ms. Johnson had access to while she served as a Director at Planned Parenthood.

What else is Planned Parenthood trying to hide? And why is this so urgent to them?

You Could Be Next!

(H/T: @karinenotkaren)
(Credit: Unknown)

Obama's latest Health Care push through Facebook?

It is now considered viral. I personally don't know where the line lies between annoyance and virility. But for what its worth, it is popular.

In fact, I refuse to even re-post the actual text on here (to increase their Google search volume), so I took a screen shot of it:





It sounds like it came from TOTUS, whose mouthpiece is Barack Obama, (POTUS). Lately, BHO has been referencing to those who have to "go broke" when they get sick. So, this appears to be stolen right out his playbook.

After reading so many of these status updates today, I was convinced that I had to respond. And so I did. I consulted a few individuals more eloquent than I and then stumbled upon this status update from a Nashville mom:

No one should die or suffer because expansive government bureaucracies are inefficient and unresponsive, and no one should have their natural liberties abridged by an all-powerful state operating under the pretenses of compassion. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day and tomorrow.

I think this is very suiting and a well worded response.


Oh, I should add that I will not be annoyed if I see this all over Facebook in the morning!


Samuel

Site Update: Comments Allowed for All*

Dear readers,

It has come to my attention that the comments feature was only available to Open ID users. Please note that this has been changed. Everyone can submit comments to articles now! You may have noticed the asterisk in the title. This refers to the continuing comment approval requirement. Due to the controversial and inflammatory truth posted on this site, I have found it necessary to review comments. I make every attempt to review them within the hour they are submitted and will only delete entries on the basis of profanity or other objectionable innuendo. In the rare event that I receive dissenting comments, I will still publish them (as long as they pass the profanity test)!

Thank you!

Samuel Carstensen
Site Administrator

The Mona Lisa Project - Sex Abuse Cover-Up at Planned Parenthood - Part 4

Visit Live Action for the full press release. Please consider supporting the incredible work this organization is doing to expose the truth.

Highway robbery can never be justified

The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would apply a federal tax of 90% to many of the bonuses that AIG gave to it executives last week.

Even if the Obama administration admits that it erroneously allowed $165 million in taxpayer funds to go to AIG executive bonuses, it cannot justify its latest measure to use taxation to get it back. Taxing any aspect of any citizen's income at 90% percent is highway robbery. I agree that it is only a fraction of their income, but the idea is that the federal government has decided to step in and effectively capped their earnings by taking the remainder of their bonuses!

Do the math! The federal government is going to tax 90%, but state and local taxes will also take at least 10%. Representative Rangel (D-NY) even went so far as to acknowledge that he "figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent."


At some point, we have to question the Democrats use of the principle that the end will justify the means.

At first glance, we recognize that the end is not a even a end that can be justified. Their goal is to return the money that AIG has "misused." However, this money was specifically given with the allowance to be disbursed in this matter. When AIG handed the checks out, they knew full and well that they were operating in accordance with the stipulations that the bill contained. Once the money was received by the executives, it became their personal property.

Secondly, we realize that the means are completely immoral and they can never be used to justify any end action. The attempts of the Democrats to "recover" the money only show their moral inconsistency, at best. The truth is that they have lost their moral compass and they no longer feel any obligation to maintain every American's right to the pursuit of happiness. This is clearly evidenced by their immediate action to tax the bonus back! The fluidity by which the government has acted to take back money which was given to citizens in the course of a private business is extremely disturbing. Taxation, when used to confiscate wealth, is entirely immoral.

Thirdly, why has this erupted into such a firestorm? Because the people became infuriated. The same American public, who had previously taken the hook line and sinker, realized that the bail out programs had backfired. They wanted their $165 million back! However, this latest taxation measure will not do so. Once the bail out package was signed, it became part of the greater budget. Those monies are already earmarked for government use. At least, if they had been given to the executives, they would have ended up in the hands of citizens! But alas, they are now part of the federal budget. We will never see that $165 million as a part of lowered taxes or a tax refund.

The $165 million was gone once the Democrat majority voted to give it to AIG. This latest measure is just an exchange of hot air and will do nothing to quell the root problem to which Americans seem to be waking.



By the way, Dodd has now blamed the Obama administration for specifically requesting that he add the amendment protecting contractual bonuses!

Preserving the Contract: Why AIG Executives Cannot Be Forced to Return the $165 Million

The following is an answer that I scrawled throughout the afternoon in response to various conversations I've had about the latest attempts of the Obama administration to block AIG from paying the $165 million in bonuses to their executives. With that in mind, please understand that this is a rough post and that some of the thoughts expressed may be incomplete. If you find any of the latter, let me know!



When the ship is sinking, we should not do business as usual.

But that does not mean we abandon the principles on which our country was founded in order to recover monies our politicians have already delivered? The mere erosion of the values and their charter would represent the greatest advance toward the destruction of our "ship." The concept of a contract is absolutely fundamental to the way our nation operates. The longevity of the United States of America can actually be attributed to the boundaries the Constitution has put on the government's interference with contracts between its citizens.

I feel very somber in writing that this is the first time that I have ever "supported" any aspect of the bailout. In fact, you will find me at the forefront of every other battle fighting against Obama and the Democrats who are destroying free market principles in their unabashed support of bureaucracies that should have failed years ago.

However, the idea that the government would intervene in any private contract for any other reason than those that make a contract viable (meeting of the minds, consideration, agreement, and competence) is absolutely reprehensible.

As we observe the problem at the surface, we must recognize the true cause. Over $173 billion has been given to AIG since September of 2008. The Democratic majority in Congress decided that it was in our best interests to support a failing organization with an unrecoverable amount of cash. In order to "guarantee" its success and to sustain the support of their constituents, they even tried to put as many strings on the check as they could (a half-hearted disguise which backfired as we'll see). Even though the liberal legislature and the Obama administration fully supported these measures, they have suddenly expressed disdain (and feigned suprise - these were scheduled bonuses with full disclosure) for the latest bonuses given to executives, totalling $165 million.

So what happened? Did AIG cheat the system? Well Chris Dodd, considered one of the masterminds behind the bailout, would like you to think so. He doesn't want you to look back to the actual language in the bail out legislation. Mr. Dodd wrote a specific exception which requires us to ignore the contractual bonuses! From page H1412 of the Final Stimulus Bill, “SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE:

'(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.”

Jim Geraghty, from the National Review, further explains that "This amendment provides an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009, which exempts the very AIG bonuses Obama is condemning every single chance he gets. The amendment is in the final version and is law."


With this legislation, we set into action a chain of events which led to the executives receiving $165 million in taxpayer funded bonuses. Unfortunately, this cannot be reversed. The law was executed when the money was given. We cannot repeal the law and take the money back. More importantly, we cannot require AIG to break its contracts with its employees in order to get our money back.

Thank you, Senator Dodd. As Jim Geraghty points out in his article (link), re-election may be hard for Mr. Dodd considering he has just angered three quarters of the nation.

The 2% Illusion - (WSJ Op)

A must read from the Wall Street Journal which brings impact to the astronomical price figures that have been assigned to Obama's current $4 trillion estimate of 2010's budget (it most likely will increase with the number of proposals that are still on the table).

FTW,

"A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion."

Barack and I

With the election results almost all in, it is clear that Barack Hussein Obama will be the 44th President of the United States of America.

Reflecting on the positions that he touted on his campaign trail, I cannot say that I am happy with the Obama win. However, the feelings that I choose to espouse will not change this reality. In fact, if I am to be who I say I am, I must retain a respect for the law of the land and recognize Barack as my President. To remind me of an even higher calling, 1 Timothy 2:1-2 calls for Christians to pray for their leaders ("for kings and all who are in high positions").

Should there come a time when Barack openly supports positions that are contrary to my values and what is best for our country, I need to also be ready to stand and be counted. As an American, I have been given unique rights which provide the opportunity to give dissent. It is not hard to imagine all of the opportunities that will present themselves in the next four years. After all, there were even similar opportunities during the last conservative presidency!

When those days come, we will pray with added fervor and act with zeal.

Rush Limbaugh succinctly phrased his reactions on his show today:

"Barack Obama is my president of the United States. I couldn't care less where he was born, what his name is, how old he is, or the color of his skin. He's not black. He's not white. He's not Asian-American or Mexican. He's not Chavez's brother or Islamic. I don't see Americans as members of groups. I see individual human beings. It is his ideas I am terrifically, tremendously worried about."

I couldn't agree more. The worry that I have is not grounded in utter despair, but a constant reminder of how easily detrimental ideas can be accepted by the undiscerning masses.

YES on Proposition 8 (Prop 8) your rights