February 1, 2011

Stung: ‘Planned Parenthood Aids Pimp’s Underage Sex Ring’

Filed under: Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 2:07 pm

I would say this is shocking, but it really isn’t. Not any more.

After Lila Rose’s exposure of Planned Parenthood in Bloomington, IN, decades of mass murder and infanticide in Philadelphia, and the ACORN vids in 2009, it has become painfully clear that pro-aborts and “community activists” will do anything and everything to get and keep their tawdry operations going, even if it means breaking the law and abandoning human decency:

(Warning: obviously R-rated topic)

More from Kathleen Lopez at The Corner, and Charlie Martin at the Tatler.

Your tax dollars are paying for a rogue organization which seems to have no trouble helping a pimp keep his operation going.

God bless Lila Rose, who produced this video, and her companion and the two brave actors who pulled this off.

As was the case with James O’Keefe’s and Hannah Giles’s ACORN exposure, the best part of the vid may turn out to be its ending:

ToBeContinued

UPDATE, Feb. 3: Yep (“Planned Parenthood, Pimps, and Underage Prostitutes: ‘To Be Continued’ Continues”).

Obama’s 2012 Campaign is Underway; GOP Should Follow Suit (Robert Roll Column)

Filed under: Economy,Education,Soc. Sec. & Retirement,Taxes & Government — Rob Roll @ 10:25 am

Last Tuesday, President Obama gave his State of the Union speech and with it he officially kicked off his 2012 reelection campaign. The speech reminded me of candidate Obama for a lot of reasons. First of all, he returned to the center of the political spectrum, at least in words. He even stole a couple phrases from Republicans. The President stated that, “We are the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea.” In their Pledge to America, released before the 2010 elections, Republicans used almost the exact same sentence. Also, by repeating the phrase “winning the future,” Obama plagiarized the title of former Speaker of the House, and possible 2012 opponent, Newt Gingrich’s 2005 book. But the president moved to the center in more ways than just stealing phrases from the GOP. He also positioned himself to take the lead on causes that the Republicans have been championing for decades, such as tax reform, deregulation, and elimination of earmarks.

This reminds me of candidate Obama. You know, the one who said he would give 95 percent of Americans a tax cut. The one who said that, if you like your current health insurance policy, you can keep it. Also, by setting lofty goals for 2025 and 2035, he seems eerily reminiscent of the junior senator who promised “hope” and “change,” but did not provide any specifics on how to accomplish anything.

In addition to moving him from the left into the center, the speech also threw a couple of bones to Obama’s left-wing base. These included attacks on oil companies and the wealthy. But the most important sop to the left came through his talk of “investments” (read spending) on infrastructure and education. Correct me if I am mistaken, but didn’t we just spend $787 billion on a “stimulus” act that was supposed to be used on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects and “prevent mass layoffs” of teachers? The president also used his time on national television to defend his record on healthcare.

The most important element of the president’s speech was his talk of reducing the nation’s national debt, which currently stands above $14 trillion. The one thing that generated the most news headlines was Obama’s proposal for a 5-year freeze on domestic spending. While I enjoy the idea of a spending freeze, freezing spending at current levels would be like freezing your calorie intake at Thanksgiving levels; if you do that, do not be surprised when you keep gaining weight. Domestic spending is only 12 percent of the budget; most of the rest goes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Despite their importance to the long-term budget, Obama only put out an offer to talk about reforming those three bankrupt entitlement programs.

All of these things remind me of the young, energetic Illinois senator who ran a formidable Karl-Rove-like, forward-looking, centrist campaign in 2008.With all of that said, one huge question looms: If he keeps this up, can the Republicans beat him in 2012?

Yes they can.

While the biggest help in reaching that objective will come from an articulate candidate, there is one thing that the Republicans in Congress can do now to achieve that goal: call Obama’s bluff and raise the stakes. Obama wants reform both the personal and business tax code by closing loop-holes? Republicans should send a bill to his desk that creates a flat tax. Obama wants to cut government red tape? Send him a bill that requires that Congress approve any regulation that costs the economy over $100 million. Obama wants to reform entitlements? Let him deliberate over a proposal that allows young people to put some of the money they currently pay into Social Security into their own personal accounts. Obama wants to reduce the deficit? Pass a budget that cuts spending to 2006 levels and then freezes it for 5 years. In each case the GOP will not only have called the President’s bet, but they will have raised the stakes

With all of these proposals, Obama will have a choice: sign it or veto it. If he vetoes them, he will have shown that he is a flip-flopper who says things, not because he believes them, but because it is good politics. If he signs them then, not only will bills that help the country become law, but then GOP can take credit for the ideas.

I fully realize that the Republicans only control the House of Representatives and therefore they will need the cooperation of some Senate Democrats in order to send bills to the president’s desk. But this may not be too difficult. In 2012 there are 22 Democratic senators up for reelection, many from red states. These senators want to be reelected too and so they will be more willing to work with the GOP. But even if that does not happen, the GOP can still deal a blow to Obama by having bills stuck in the Senate. If bills get stalled by the threat of a filibuster, then Obama will look like a weak leader who cannot even get his own party to work with him.

While November 2012 is still a long way off, Obama has already kicked off his campaign. The Republicans need to follow suit by forcing the President to live up to his words.

____________________________________________

Robert Roll is a freshman majoring in Finance at Ohio Northern University, and the blog owner’s nephew.

Walter Russell Mead: ‘I Don’t Think We’re Done Yet’

Filed under: Environment,Marvels,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 10:14 am

Walter Russell Mead, from a read-the-whole-thinger at the American Interest (“Mad Meat Making Scientist Proves Climate Doomsayers Wrong”; HT Instapundit), commenting on a report that a scientist believes he can show the world how to (eventually) economically manufacture “meat” in a lab:

Mr. Mironov might be wasting his time, or he might really be onto something.

But the point is that there are hundreds of thousands of Dr. Mironovs working on all kinds of unconventional inventions and ideas in labs and garages all over the world. Most of them may never produce very much but, especially with the tremendous advance of knowledge in biology of recent decades, some of them are going to get some very remarkable, life changing results.

Whether we will get delicious juicy shamburgers and sinfully salty, crisp facon (fake bacon) anytime soon is beyond me. But that the future will be full of surprises that change the basic rules of the energy game is almost certain. This is why I don’t think the prophets of doom have it right. Human ingenuity has been getting us out of tight corners and making life unexpectedly better for thousands of years; I don’t think we’re done yet.

Of course we’re not. But if government obstructions to human ingenuity and government takeovers of industry (either through outright ownership or de facto control through excessive regulation), which create vested interests who fight mightily to prevent or severely slow down their industries’ oncoming obsolescence (i.e., Schumpeter’s “creative destruction“), continue to grow, the process will be much more chancy, and less often successful.

In fact, the obstacles to creative destruction are evident in the underlying Reuters report:

Growth of “in-vitro” or cultured meat is also under way in the Netherlands, Mironov told Reuters in an interview, but in the United States, it is science in search of funding and demand.

The new National Institute of Food and Agriculture, part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, won’t fund it, the National Institutes of Health won’t fund it, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration funded it only briefly, Mironov said.

“It’s classic disruptive technology,” Mironov said. “Bringing any new technology on the market, average, costs $1 billion. We don’t even have $1 million.”

People like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google guys, or companies like GE, all of whom look more and more like defenders of the statist status quo than the creative individuals and entities they once were, could do humanity much more good by getting behind initiatives like in-vitro meat (with appropriate due diligence of course; this is not an endorsement of Mironov’s work) than they will ever accomplish with their non-stop green lobbying and rent-seeking.

Lucid Links (020111, Morning)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 8:42 am

Steven Heyward on Ron Reagan, son of President Ronald Reagan (bolds are mine):

… Ron inherited much of his father’s grace with language (so did Patti). I don’t begrudge him his personal grievances, but it is a shame that he has used his literary talent to besmirch his father’s memory with the risible charge that his Alzheimer’s disease was already evident in his second term. This simply doesn’t square with the evidence, and ignores a huge problem for Ron: the fact that Reagan’s greatest achievement — ending the Cold War — occurred in his second term when he supposedly was losing his mind.

… Equally risible is the comment he made during his book tour that Ronald Reagan couldn’t win the Republican nomination today because the Republican party has become too extreme. The snort-worthy irony here is that everybody in the late 1970s, especially the Republican establishment, said that Reagan couldn’t win the presidency because he was too extreme. This reveals not just a lack of perspective, but a cynical lashing-out at his political opponents.

Reagan on his worst day was far better than Jimmy Carter on his best — oh, and Reagan didn’t have Alzheimer’s while in office:

David Shenk: … The short answer is no — he did not have diagnosable Alzheimer’s in the White House.

But it’s clear from looking at the evidence that his memory troubles in the White House were much too slight to be considered Alzheimer’s.

It is also virtually certain that Ronald Reagan would be Tea Party-sympathetic were he alive today. Given the content of this audio, he absolutely would have applauded yesterday’s federal court ruling nullifying Obamacare:

______________________________________________

Speaking of Tea Party-sympathetic, here’s a passage from Page 42 of yesterday’s federal court ruling declaring Obamacare null and void, commenting on the absurdity of the individual mandate:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

I love this guy. The left and the establishment press (being redundant) are soooo going to go after him with a vengeance.

Memo to Mike Wilson: You may have lost your Ohio Rep race, thanks largely to the $500,000 – $750,000 spent to defeat you, but largely thanks to you, the Tea Party movement you were so influential in organizing won big yesterday.

______________________________________________

Wendell Cox at National Review, proving that Ohio Governor John Kasich was right to reject federal high-speed rail money:

High-Speed Rail, Budget Buster
Virtually everywhere it has been constructed, taxpayers have lost out.

The numbers are really ugly, virtually everywhere. The environmental benefits are also non-existent: “HSR’s (high-speed rail’s) impact on CO2 would be inconsequential while being exorbitantly costly.”

________________________________________________

From the “So Predictable” Dept.: “TSA shuts door on private airport screening program” — “on Friday, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint workforce, and in a statement, (Transportation Security Administration Director John) Pistole indicated other applications likewise will be denied.”

_______________________________________________

Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media — “The British disease.” The lesson here isn’t just that our President is bound and determined to introduce management by union paralysis into the everyday workings of the federal government. It’s that an Executive Order that is over a year old is just now getting meaningful attention. How many other pernicious things are occurring without notice?

______________________________________________

Two important points about a school the Barack Obama identified his State of the Union message as a great turnaound story (HT Doub Powers at Michelle Malkin’s place) require emphasis.

First, Obama failed to explain the reason for its turnaround:

it In 2007, Denver Public Schools gave Bruce Randolph School permission to operate autonomously. It was the first school in the state to be granted autonomy from district and union rules.

Each teacher then had to reapply for his or her job. A published report said only six teachers remained.

“Teachers who didn’t believe in the students didn’t come on board,” said Kristin Waters, principal during the transition.

Second, if Team Obama had to use Randolph as the exemplar of school improvement, it must not have been able to find a great turnaround example at a traditional public school — perhaps because there aren’t any.

Positivity: Adult Stem Cells Helping Women With Breast Reconstruction

Filed under: Health Care,Life-Based News,Marvels — Tom @ 5:56 am

From Japan (HT David Prentice at LifeNews.com, who notes: “Adult stem cells continue to prove their superior capabilities for tissue repair in patients”):

A research institute to be established in spring will attempt to regenerate the breast tissue of mastectomy patients from their own stem cells, sources said.

Kyushu University and Osaka University will join hands with other national universities and medical institutions to establish the institute to help breast cancer patients, with clinical tests scheduled to begin by March next year.

The institute hopes to devise a treatment that will gain government approval and be covered by health insurance, according to the sources.

Currently, the most common methods of breast reconstruction are silicon injections and fat implants. However, silicon injections pose a risk of infection, and fat implants are only a short-term solution as the implanted fat is gradually absorbed by the body. …

Go here for the rest of the story.