CALIFORNIA ATTY-GENERAL MORE WORRIED ABOUT PERMITS THAN BABY ORGAN TRAFFICKING
Most people who follow the news chatter know by now that a Planned Parenthood executive was caught on video talking about how the price of a specific baby organ depends on the disparate difficulty it causes the abortionist during the “extraction”, a euphemism for prenatal infanticide. The word “crunch” came up several times.
So what does the Attorney General of California promise to do? Root out this evil incentive for baby parts trafficking? No, she’s going to investigate whether there is any permit or license that the messenger forgot to get in this filming, and if the messenger violated any of the minuscule regulations on such matters.
Of course with the massive Hollywood press industry in the middle and paparazzi protections in place, maybe they’ll have some difficulty.
After all, nobody protested, or requested such an investigation, of Michael Moore, who pulled the same kind of stunt on Clint Eastwood for his anti-gun film.
Some in Congress are indignantly talking about investigating. These are politicians mostly of the party that has had several chances to shut down the massive federal funding this infanticide industry gets, and in the several states, and have not done so. Maybe somebody has the inside scoop on these reluctant pro-life politicians.
And `let’s give a nod to those Democrat Party Congressmen who could have blocked the infanticide-friendly Obamacare law, but were pushed, cajoled and even lobbied personally by President Barack Obama himself to obey. Bart Stupak was the “last hope”, he sacrificed his political career to what he had to know was a lying promise from the president’s mouth, and dragged the few fellow pro-life Democrats to defeat in the next election.
Whatever did Obama *really* say to Stupak in that secret meeting? What incentives, arguments, threats?
JUDGE ORDERS CHICAGO TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR UNIONS AND POLITICIANS’ LYING PROMISES
How can anybody say that there is government “by the people” if the elected politicians can conspire with union bosses to sign contracts that steal other people’s money to fund public employee pensions?
Every legislature that burdens future legislatures and future generations with a growing debt and theft by inflation is committing a robbery that no non-governmental criminal organization can match in its brazen immorality, its arrogance, committed under a cover story of playing fair and favoring the poor.
But then again, the voters go ho-hum and too many of them think they’re voting for “fairness”, when demagogues promise to “help the poor” and soak the rich. They ARE the rich people!
WHO SHOULD VOTE?
“Immigrants aren’t the only ones who shouldn’t be voting”:
Ryan makes a good point here. People think it’s really bad when a mayor gives the garbage utility contract to his own company. That’s obviously a conflict of interest. Nepotism is a dirty word.
And yet seniors have a vote on who can use other people’s extorted moneys to give to them. Welfare recipients vote on who takes other people’s money to give to them. The long list does not just include not only food stamp recipients, Medicaid, healthcare subsidies for the poor, Section Eight housing. There are nationally protected industries and unions who benefit materially from government policies. Students get federal aid and think it’s a great program.
We have a zillion laws against conflicts of interest in working for government and in working for companies. In many cases it is a crime for a company employee to receive gifts in exchange for favoring one vendor over another.
The same idea applied to political elections would make elections much more fair.
If you get any benefits at all from government, you give up your “right to vote” on who pays you those benefits, whether it’s a job, or direct subsidies, or any program moneys at all. Subsidies would include of course all corporate subsidies and the effect would apply to all employees of any said company. That means all of them. It means all organizations that work on electing anybody.
Corporations would have less political clout that way. Welfare recipients too, but nobody wants to get a label of Scrooge. Private companies even now budget lots of money for “charities”.
A person seeking employment would consider this. No more political promises to “bring home the bacon”. No more representatives pushing to allocate bases to their home towns and messing with the voter base that got them their job, even though they cannot vote.
Even some of these staged shows the industry calls “reality shows” do not allow contestants to vote for themselves.
(The industry likes to call them “reality” shows, but who in the real world normally goes naked in a bug-infested jungle full of briers, bristles and thorns to see if they can last 21 days? They are game shows, innovative as they may be)