abortion, abuse, babies, bias, bullies, corruption, culture, ethics, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism

Sometimes It’s Just Easier To Care About Dead Lions Than Dead People

original article: Sometimes It’s Just Easier To Care About Dead Lions Than Dead People
July 29, 2015 by Matt Walsh

I started noticing “Cecil the Lion” trending on Facebook and Twitter at some point yesterday afternoon. By the evening, it was the most popular topic on social media, and stories about the lion were popping up on all of the national news sites.

Before I took the time to investigate, I tried to imagine if there could be any valid reason for a wild cat to become the biggest news item in the world. On a day when another undercover video revealed Planned Parenthood dismembering murdered children for profit, I strained to think if there might be some justification for ignoring the harvesting of human beings in favor of obsessing over a large feline in Africa.

I thought maybe the lion had cured cancer, or sprouted wings and flown into space, or stood on its hind legs and recited the Gettysburg Address. Surely, these developments would vindicate the disproportionate amount of attention it was receiving. But I quickly found out that the lion, from Zimbabwe, had done no such thing. Apparently, all it did was die.
Of course, lots of people died yesterday too, especially in Zimbabwe. Across the planet, human travesties continued to unfold – Christians were slaughtered in the Middle East, political prisoners were tortured and executed in North Korea and Iran, Americans fell prey to crime and violence spilling over our southern border, and about 3,000 human children were butchered in abortion clinics, some of which were then dissected and sold on the black market – but this one unfortunate beast in a forest 9,000 miles away trumped all of these. Human victims would have to wait yet another day to be noticed by our culture. Their plight just couldn’t compete with a cute, fuzzy mammal.
Poor Cecil, as I’m sure you heard, was ”murdered” by an American dentist named Walter Palmer. The dentist traveled there and paid some $55,000 for the privilege to hunt and kill the king of the jungle. It turns out that the hunt might not have been legal. He says he thought he was acting within the law, and that he didn’t know Cecil was a beloved animal celebrity in Africa. His pleads of ignorance may or may not be true, but they are called into question by the fact that he’s been convicted of poaching before.
This was all enough to earn him the wrath of progressive America, but none of these crimes compare to the fact that he is, evidently, a Republican.

We know these details about his life, and about the sexual harassment claim made against him in 2009, because the media has feverishly poured through his record and heaped more scrutiny upon him than they have on every Democrat politician in the last 40 years combined. Meanwhile, the internet lynch mob predictably leaped into action. Palmer’s personal address was released, death threats were issued, his business was attacked and shutdown, he was forced into hiding, and scores of drooling trolls flocked to Twitter to fantasize about all of the creative and violent things they’d love to do to him:

Some even began non-ironically using #LionLivesMatter

Refusing to be upstaged in this contest for the title of Most Exorbitant Reaction, PETA proclaimed that Palmer ought to be “extradited and hung.” A bunch of famous people joined the dog pile, utilizing their platforms to declare Palmer “disgusting,” a “murderer,” and “Satan.” Other celebrities have asked that his citizenship be permanently revoked. Sharon Osbourne labeled Palmer a “killer” and said she hopes he loses his house and his business. According to Sharon, even his wife and children deserve to be homeless. Jimmy Kimmel, late night host on ABC, took time out of his comedy show to deliver a tearful rant, calling the hunter an “a-hole” and a “jackal.”

All of this, over a lion.

It bears repeating that this happened on the same day that a video was released showing lab technicians dissecting the body parts of murdered humans while discussing how much money they could get for each “item.” This footage was completely ignored. Our culture let out a massive, collective yawn, instead choosing to wail over the fate of some random hairy beast in southern Africa.
The whole thing transcends mere absurdity. It is beyond ridiculous. Far past anything that could be called simply exaggerated or irrational. The swarms of petty nitwits in our culture have finally outdone themselves. What we are witnessing is something worse than an Idiocracy; it is total moral chaos.

I’m not defending Walter Palmer, by the way. I don’t have any problem with hunters — and in most cases, African big game hunters help both the local economies in these areas, and the ongoing effort to preserve endangered species — but it seems that Palmer broke the law and killed a lion that was financially valuable to the locals. That was bad. He shouldn’t have done that. If the story we’re hearing is accurate (and there’s always a significant chance that it isn’t accurate, or at least isn’t complete) then Palmer was in the wrong.

Still, the reaction is so inordinate and overwrought that I have to laugh. I have nothing against Cecil, I’m sure he was a swell chap, but no dead animal could ever justify this excessive and callous backlash from such a frantic mob of vindictive, retaliatory buffoons. Even ancient pagan tribes that literally worshiped animals probably exercised more restraint when a heretic killed one of their animal deities.

It’s fine if you are opposed to what Palmer did, but that doesn’t excuse you from the duty to be sane and rational. It’s a lion, after all. An animal. If you want to be really agitated by a doctor who kills living things, you should probably be less focused on this dentist and a little more focused on abortionists like LeRoy Carhart, who murder actual people. Carhart has killed both unborn and born humans, and likes to do the former by ripping the child apart while it’s still alive. Maybe the media should be camping out in front of his house instead of Palmer’s. Maybe we should be asking why doctors are allowed to execute babies, not why dentists are allowed to hunt African game.

This dichotomy has become, perhaps, the most bewildering and confusing thing about our culture. Progressives actively celebrate the most depraved evils, and then make super villains out of folks who hunt, or fly Confederate flags, or refuse to bake gay wedding cakes. It’s like they’re standing on a street corner simultaneously applauding a thug as he murders a man for his wallet, and calling for a summary execution of a pedestrian who forgot to use the crosswalk. This isn’t just a matter of misplaced priorities; this is unadulterated lunacy.

Yes, I realize that liberal hypocrites aren’t the only ones upset about the lion. Some people are animal lovers, but they put that love for animals in perspective. They might cry for the cat, but they cry more for humans who are murdered, persecuted, or exploited. Compassionate souls love animals deeply because they possess a profound respect for all life. In the mode of St. Francis of Assisi, their mercy for animals stems from their love of God. I take no issue at all with the people in this category, obviously. I love animals myself.

But the fact remains that many in our society are descending like a pack of frenzied hyenas upon a man who shot a lion, yet feel no anger when confronted with the murder of children. And abortion isn’t the only evil accepted or celebrated by progressivism. We are living in a culture of death where cruelty and brutality reign supreme. The reaction to this “scandal” only further reveals and illuminates that cruelty. We think nothing of trying to destroy a man, ruin his life, and wish for his painful demise, without knowing anything else about him. We are so numb, so indifferent, that we will rip a stranger to pieces, cannibalize him publicly, tear him down until there is nothing left, and then sleep like babies at night.

Yet, the lion.

Kill the children if you want. Destroy the dentist just for fun. Demean and degrade anyone who acts or thinks differently, if for no other reason than there’s not much else to do. But a dead lion — now there’s a victim we should mourn.

It seems baffling. It would all make sense if our culture showed no concern for the plight of human beings, and also displayed a similar wanton disregard for animals and trees. Then we would just be nihilists and Darwinists. Human life has no objective value, we would reason, therefore no life has any objective value. We would be naked and honest barbarians.

But our barbarism is clothed and hidden beneath this thin veneer of an arbitrary concern for random animals and plant life. And not even every animal. That’s why most of the people panicking over “Cecil” will still order the hamburger when they go to Applebee’s, still use insecticide to ruthlessly poison innocent roaches and ants, and still drink milk extracted from enslaved cows.

They give lions and elephants a certain elevated status, but can’t explain why. They might insist that these creatures are special because they’re “endangered,” but they can’t tell you why it matters that they’re endangered. If the world didn’t need the baby who’s now being dissected in a petri dish in some research facility, why did it need Cecil the lion? What was he doing that was so special? How was he contributing to the advancement of civilization? He was peeing in the grass, licking his butt, and eating zebras. Big deal. That baby could have grown up and become an inventor, a philanthropist, an artist, a lover, a thinker, a father, a mother, a pioneer. If that potential wasn’t enough to let the child off the hook, why do we make an exception for the beast? Are we grading on a curve here?

These questions are rhetorical. I already know the answer. I know why progressives cry for dead lions and not dead babies: it’s called Natural Law.

Natural Law holds that all people possess a conscience, therefore all people innately recognize the distinction between good and evil. We are naturally repulsed by evil and attracted to goodness. This is why every civilization has outlawed sins like murder and theft, and hailed virtues like charity and mercy. Of course, many civilizations have redefined murder so as to permit a convenient form of it, but still no society has ever come out and defended murder in principle.

No society can ever be explicitly nihilist. As in, no society can outwardly live by the philosophy that everything is meaningless and nothing matters. Individuals can try it, but like Nietzsche they’ll end up in a mental institution, babbling to themselves while eating their own excrement. Societies, though, have to at least pretend they believe in doing the right thing. A society must convince itself it hates evil and loves goodness. Even the Nazis rationalized that they were serving the greater good of mankind.

So when our culture decides to sit back and tolerate, or even revere and commend, perverse evils like abortion, pornography, the breakdown of the family, the persecution of Christians, etc., it begins to accumulate a kind of Outrage Reservoir. Deep down, we must feel like we oppose evil. We can’t laud the most insidious atrocities of our time, and then look in the mirror and face ourselves honestly. The righteous anger that should be poured out in response to these true horrors is bottled and contained, clogging up our souls like constipated bowels.

We search desperately for an acceptable target for our surplus of withheld scorn, and when we locate it, we unload like we just chugged a gallon of laxative. Suddenly, some guy who killed a lion in Zimbabwe receives all of the compiled disdain that should have been discharged on the abortionists and the pornographers and the persecutors. Our pent up rage and anger mixes with guilt and self-loathing, and together it creates this concentrated bile that drowns and destroys whatever tragic chump they throw before us to be devoured. It’s nothing personal against him, really. Walter Palmer is a sacrificial lamb. A punching bag, strung up and dangled in front of progressive America as a way for them to release their moral frustrations. He’s an object. A receptacle for their misdirected vengeance. It’s like self-flagellation, only minus the self. And next week they’ll be flagellating some other patsy, and nobody will even remember or care about poor old Walter Palmer.

A year from now, someone will do a follow up story about that villainous dentist from long ago, and we’ll all think, “Oh yeah, whatever happened to that guy?” Then we’ll see that he lost his business, his family, and his dignity, and now lives as a sad shell of a forgotten man. “Serves him right for doing whatever he did,” we’ll say proudly, as we get back to feasting upon the newest Scoundrel Du Jour. It’s a never ending pattern, played out over and over again by a progressive culture filled with craven wimps, always compensating for their moral failings by tearing down false Satans, too afraid to do battle with the real one.

You might wonder how progressives choose their new devils and new gods. Why Walter Palmer? Why Cecil the Lion? Well, there’s a randomness to it, of course. And there are always the superfluous reasons, like the fact that most of the members of the lynch mob probably have fond memories of “The Lion King.” But I think, more fundamentally, progressives choose to care about lions because lions are an abstraction. They care about the idea of lions.

Real lions are all the way in Africa, or else contained in zoos. You can go and see them, or watch them on TV, or read about them, but crucially, lions will never ask anything from us. Our affection for them presents no challenges. We don’t have to accommodate them. I can say I love lions, but this love will never require me to do anything. Lions will never inconvenience me. They’ll never get in my way. I can defend the lives of lions by angrily Tweeting about hunters, and then I can go on my way, live however I want, and never be asked to change my lifestyle for their sake.

People, on the other hand, are real. They are here. They impose themselves on our lives. They burden us. They surround us. To care about people is hard. It requires us to live, act, think, and speak differently. We have to accommodate people. We have to tolerate people. We have to do things for people, especially the most vulnerable and helpless people. It’s no coincidence that progressivism advocates abortion to deal with children, and euthanasia to handle the old and the infirm. If it is going to pretend to love human beings at all, it must first get rid of the most burdensome types.

It can be hard to love people. And if you say you love people, life is going to constantly demand that you prove it. If you say you love people, you certainly can’t kill your own child, and you can’t support the killing of children, and even if you don’t have kids, you have to be patient and kind with other people’s kids, and other people generally. This is very different from loving lions. You can love lions passively, in the abstract; people must be loved actively, in reality.

If ever some deranged terrorist transported thousand of lions into our neighborhoods, forcing us to actually love lions in some real and present sense, I can guarantee the progressive affection for the species would vanish rapidly.

This is the progressive modus operandi. Progressivism loves everything that can be loved lazily or indulgently, and nothing that must be loved sacrificially and earnestly. It loves nothing that requires any action on its part.

Put more simply, it loves nothing.

But it will keep pretending anyway.

abortion, abuse, babies, bias, bullies, corruption, culture, ethics, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism

budget, bureaucracy, corruption, criminal, entitlements, ethics, fraud, funding, government, nanny state, oversight, public policy, scandal, wealthy, welfare

Feds Gave Low-Income Housing to Millionaires

original article: Feds Gave Low-Income Housing to Millionaires
July 27, 2015 by Elizabeth Harrington

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave low-income housing to millionaires, according to a recent audit.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) found over 25,000 families who earned too much to qualify for subsidized apartments, which will cost taxpayers $104.4 million this year.

“Public housing authorities provided public housing assistance to as many as 25,226 families whose annual household income exceeded HUD’s 2014 program eligibility income limits,” according to the audit. “Most of these families had earned more than the qualifying amount for more than 1 year, were not participating in programs that would allow them to reside in public housing, and occupied units while many families were waiting for public housing assistance.”

“This condition occurred because HUD regulations require families to meet eligibility income limits only when they are admitted to the public housing program,” it said. “The regulations do not limit the length of time that families may reside in public housing.”

Of the 25,226 overincome families identified, 47 percent earned at least $10,000 more than the income limit, and 70 percent lived in subsidized housing for more than a year.

A millionaire in Oxford, Neb., has been able live in low-income housing since 2010. The monthly rent is $300.

“As of April 2014, the single-member household’s annual income was $65,007, while the low-income threshold was $33,500,” the OIG explained. “Also, this tenant had total assets valued at nearly $1.6 million, which included stock valued at $623,685, real estate valued at $470,600, a checking account with a balance of $334,637, and an individual retirement account with a balance of $123,445.”

HUD did not evict the millionaire because “the tenant was income eligible at admission and has not violated the lease agreement.”

The OIG identified a sample of 25 overincome families who either had more than $1 million in assets, or had income that was significantly greater than the income limits.

Another ineligible family paid only $1,091 a month to live in Los Angeles, even though their annual income was $204,784.

A family in New York City was also able to stay in housing that limited income at $67,100, event though they earned $497,911 annually, plus $790,534 in rental income between 2009 and 2013.

Many housing authorities cited by the OIG said they do not evict wealthy individuals and families from low-income housing because “its policy does not require it to terminate the tenancy or evict families solely because they are overincome.”

budget, bureaucracy, corruption, criminal, entitlements, ethics, fraud, funding, government, nanny state, oversight, public policy, scandal, wealthy, welfare

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, culture, elitism, extremism, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism

The Left Embraces the Logic of Fascism

original article: The Left Embraces the Logic of Fascism
July 27, 2015 by Andrew Klavan

The logic of fascism is this: “Your X constitute[s] an act of violence, so I’m justified in using violence against you.” For X, you can fill in just about anything except actual violence. Some of the more popular choices are: “Words; Opinions; Positions; Race; Presence; Borders; Jewishness.” Once you equate any of these things — anything — with violence, once you feel justified in committing violence in response, your actual positions no longer matter. You’re a thug. You’re a fascist. You’re a tyrant, petty or otherwise. You no longer have a place at the discussion table.

Violence is not in the same category as any other human interchange. Our right to life and safety is our first right and the one on which all others depend. Free speech, religious freedom, freedom of the press — none of these means anything if people are allowed to hurt or kill you for them. That’s why every civilized system of law recognizes: Violence is justified only as a response to actual or threatened violence. You can say the most awful things to me, but if I can’t show that real physical violence was a reasonable threat, I can’t legally respond with force.

Even the logic of fascism understands this — and seeks to disguise it by labeling as violence what is not violence at all: your words, your opinions, your race, the fact that you’re a Jew.

On a recent episode of Headline News’s Dr. Drew on Call transexual Inside Edition reporter Zoey Tur put his hand on commentator Ben Shapiro’s neck and threatened to send Ben home in an ambulance. This was in response to the fact that Ben called Tur “sir,” and thus refused to accept him as a woman. Rather than make his case in response, Tur bought into the logic of fascism. After that, as far as I’m concerned, his opinion doesn’t matter. His gender doesn’t matter. His feelings don’t matter. When you go to violence in response to words, by my lights, you become a fascist; you become a thug. Your moral legitimacy is gone, baby, gone.

What Tur did bothers me and I think he should be charged with assault and battery (the touch makes it both). It hardly needs saying that if the positions had been reversed, Ben would have been arrested. The media would have demanded it, and they’d have been right. But what bothers me much more than Tur are the apparently sane and civilized people who swallowed the fascist pill right with him. Dr. Drew Pinsky, who did nothing to stop the incident and hasn’t condemned it. Panelist Segun Oduolowu who, speaking like a true fascist, said, “What [Shapiro] did was deliberately disrespectful. You call a transgender woman sir on national television you know what you are doing.” Robin Abcarian of the Los Angeles Times, who mischaracterized the incident in an article and then called Ben the bully. Scott Eric Kaufman, who tried to make Tur’s violence seem heroic at Salon. Because, you know, words are like violence so…

Congratulations, gang. You bought in. Whether your political positions are right or wrong, you’re now fully in the wrong. Come up on stage and pick up your swastika.

And to all those on Twitter and the like who call Ben “whiny” or a coward because he openly protests against being manhandled and threatened, let me explain something to you just so you know: You’re moral idiots. When, like Ben, you’ve looked a thug in the face and held to your position despite his threats, then come to me and explain what courage is. Because then maybe you’ll know.

For crying out loud, has the left really forgotten this? This is so basic. Yell at each other. Call each other names. Say whatever you want. But try to act like grown men and women — like free men and women. Try to act like Americans. Keep your damned hands to yourself.

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, culture, elitism, extremism, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism

abortion, cover up, ethics, funding, greed, ideology, pro-life, protests, scandal

Planned Parenthood gets paid for work it doesn’t do

original article: What These Pro-Life Groups Have to Say to Companies Donating to Planned Parenthood
July 24, 2015 by Kate Scanlon

On Tuesday, The Daily Signal published a list of companies that donate or have donated directly to Planned Parenthood, either through grants or through matching employee gifts. We used data from 2nd Vote, a website and app that tracks causes that corporations donate to.

We asked each company about its donations to the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Spokespersons for three of the companies—Coca-Cola, Ford and Xerox—objected to their inclusion on the list. When The Daily Signal provided the companies with a Planned Parenthood website listing them as donors, they said they would be contacting the organization to be removed.

Planned Parenthood later removed all corporate donors from the site.

Many of the companies acknowledged that they contribute to Planned Parenthood through their employee gift matching programs.

The Daily Signal reached out to pro-life groups to ask what they would tell consumers about these companies.

Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, said that “this shows how badly Planned Parenthood is hurting.”

“A couple of years ago, businesses would have replied that they proudly supported Planned Parenthood or live in fear if they didn’t (remember what they did to the Komen Foundation?) but today they are the defense, rushing to say that they are not directly donating to Planned Parenthood but instead are giving their employees the option to donate—which is still giving money to the abortion giant,” Hawkins said.

“You can’t just donate to Planned Parenthood and say your donation is earmarked for utilities or staff or paper clips but not abortion.”

“The building and the staff and the utilities all contribute in some way to abortion and are involved [in] it,” Hawkins said. “Any money whatsoever going to Planned Parenthood in any way contributes to the more than 327,000 abortions they commit every year—and who knows what else they do behind closed doors, some of which is thankfully now being revealed because of the Center for Medical Progress videos.”

Rev. Clenard Childress of the Life Education and Resource Network said that he applauds companies who practice corporate responsibility, but that the companies on the list need to more carefully scrutinize “to whom they are writing checks.”

“The community should hold them accountable,” Childress said.

He criticized the companies who said they will donate to “any” organization their employees choose.

“Would you write a check to the Ku Klux Klan?” Childress asked.

Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life, said her organization has called for Planned Parenthood to be defunded because there “have always been concerns” about it.

She said that not only is Planned Parenthood allegedly selling fetal organs, but its employees also “changing their abortion procedure” to obtain them.

“We know, from history, that we cannot trust Planned Parenthood,” Day said.

“Just a few years ago, the Komen Foundation decided not to provide grants to organizations who do not actually perform mammograms. Planned Parenthood, who does not perform mammograms, embarked on a huge PR campaign to complain about Komen’s policy because their half a million dollar grant was pulled. PP raised over $3.3 million in 24 hours (6 times the grant they would have lost). Komen was hit hard by the smear campaign and lost millions of dollars at future fundraising events. Planned Parenthood’s grant for mammograms was restored, but they still do not perform mammograms. The grant would have paid for 50,000 mammograms for women.”

“American tax dollars should be allocated to companies we can trust, not to organizations that bring customers into their business, offer a procedure—abortion—and in turn benefit financially from their recommendation, selling hearts, lungs and livers,” Day added.

“American businesses should follow this same protocol.”

abortion, cover up, ethics, funding, greed, ideology, pro-life, protests, scandal

abortion, babies, corruption, criminal, ethics, extremism, greed, left wing, liberalism, progressive, scandal, video

Planned Parenthood Faces Allegations From Former Clinic Worker in Graphic New Video

original article: Planned Parenthood Faces Allegations From Former Clinic Worker in Graphic New Video
July 28, 2015 by Kelsey Harkness

A new documentary-style video was released today about Planned Parenthood’s alleged “black market” of the harvesting and selling of fetal body parts.

The 12-minute video, titled “Human Capital,” features a woman who says she previously worked for a company that procured tissue and organs for Planned Parenthood clinics describing what she considers to be the profit motive involved in the harvesting of aborted fetal body parts.

Viewers should be warned that the video is graphic. There are images of aborted fetal body parts.

“I thought I was going to be just drawing blood, not procuring tissue from aborted fetuses,” says Holly O’Donnell, who claims she fainted on her first day of work.

They [Planned Parenthood] get paid from it. They do get some kind of benefit.

Under federal law, is illegal to profit off of the sale or purchase of human fetal tissue.

The video also features undercover footage of Dr. Savita Ginde, vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains in Denver.

Standing in the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic pathology laboratory, where fetuses are brought after abortions, Ginde suggests the clinic benefits in some way from harvesting these organs, stating payment per organ “works a little better,” according to the video.

“I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it,” she says.

The episode, produced by the Center for Medical Progress, follows two undercover videos depicting senior Planned Parenthood officials discussing the harvesting of organs from aborted fetuses.

Planned Parenthood has adamantly denied that the organization profits off of tissue from aborted babies, and says the videos have been heavily edited to depict Planned Parenthood workers in the worst way possible.

The previous two videos triggered congressional investigations and calls to end taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood.

According to its annual report, Planned Parenthood received more than $500 million in taxpayer funding while performing 327,653 abortions, making it the nation’s largest abortion provider.

In the coming weeks, the Center for Medical Progress is expected to release more episodes as part of its “Human Capital” series.

abortion, babies, corruption, criminal, ethics, extremism, greed, left wing, liberalism, progressive, scandal, video

bias, bullies, bureaucracy, capitalism, corruption, culture, Democrats, elitism, extortion, government, greed, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, politics, progressive, propaganda, public policy, regulation, scandal, video

Uber shows us why progressives hate choice

If there’s anything that scares government loving progressives more it isn’t what you might think. A lot of people (myself included) would think threats to the Democrat voter base would be the worst thing to progressives. Apparently that’s not the case. The biggest threat is anything that challenges their political money base.

Uber is a fine example of free enterprise at work. It uses existing untapped resources (people who already have vehicles) to provide a service better at a cheaper price than what is already offered (taxi services, in this case), and the people who do the work (individual citizens using their own vehicles) get to enjoy a little prosperity for their efforts. The process is self regulating (reputational tracking) which protects both passengers and drivers, and all this happens in real time. And drivers get to set their own schedules to work as much or as little or how they want. Is this a great country or what?

Well, for some, the answer is “or what”.

You would think offering the people more choice, improved service, at a lower price, with no increased risk to their well being would be a good thing. But you’re not an ultra leftist, are you? You don’t think government knows best and government needs to be in charge of everything and control people’s choices (except who they have sex with), do you? But some people are ultra leftists, radical progressives who think too much freedom and independence is a danger to us all.

The Washington Post’s Emily Badger recently chronicled how NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio sought to limit Uber. The mayor essentially tried to paint Uber as a big corporate bully trying to tell government what to do. Does Uber make money in the billions? Yes. Is Uber a big corporation? Well, that depends on a few of the details. You see, the many people offering rides to people are the primary driving force of Uber. Without them Uber would never have gotten off the ground. Then there are the millions of people to use Uber to transport themselves. They are the paying customers, they are the source of Uber’s billions. Why would so many people in big cities choose Uber over taxies and public transportation? I’m sure you can figure that out on your own.

But to make choice and innovation and convenience look bad de Blasio essentially has to treat Uber like the Kulaks, a class of peasants (that’s you and me, and Uber drivers) who have the gumption to rely on ingenuity and ambition to create something other people are willing to pay for but has the unfortunate effect of challenging government cronyism. And what crony industry is being challenged by Uber – taxi cartels. Badger provides this nugget in her article:

“This lets other cities know that Uber is not going to be intimidated by municipal governments,” said Mitchell Moss, director of the Rudin Center for Transportation at NYU, “that the days of taxi industry cartels are over, and that meddling with how people get from place to place is not easily done in an age of Internet-based mobility.”

Okay, if you’d like a less politically loaded term, instead of taxi cartel how about we just call them Medallion owners. But they are an example of cronyism none-the-less. In fact, what is a medallion in this context anyway? It’s a regulated requirement of taxi companies, companies who are highly regulated by their local governments and have to pay sometimes over $1 million to have the right to transport people around town. And the taxi industry’s multi-billion dollar bottom line is being threatened by Uber. But because of the many regulations on taxis, so is the tax revenue big city governments collect from taxi companies.

Ironically, it is taxi companies who are acting like a big corporate bully trying to tell government what to do. Taxi companies are complaining that Uber is taking business away from medallion owners and driving prices down. Oh my! And to rectify this horrible travesty taxi companies are pressuring governments to clamp down on Uber. And taxi companies have allies.

The Observer’s Ronn Torossian also seems to think Uber is a danger to the people, not merely the taxi companies. Torossian is worried that Uber drivers are unregulated and therefore dangerous. Never mind pedestrians are unregulated and people walk passed them all the time. But government regulation is not the only means of regulating Uber and similar businesses. Market self-regulation is happening via the reputation tracking feature in Uber. The reputation tracking idea is old, as far as technology goes. And it’s viability has been proven beyond doubt by giants such as Ebay.

On the more mindless end of things is infamous personality Russel Brand, complaining about profit. We all know cab companies are in the transportation business for money but Brand doesn’t seem to realize this. And he thinks Uber drivers don’t put their “profits” back into the local economy like official cab drivers do.

On the elitist, arrogant side is Mayor de Blasio himself. He was offered an opportunity to debate the issues with Uber but smugly rejected the invitation claiming he doesn’t “debate with private corporations” and labeled the open invitation as an attempt to dictate to government.

But the public isn’t buying that. While there is indeed a lot of blowback, guess who’s defending Uber – the people! Not only Uber drivers, but Uber’s customers are defending it. Uber agreed to a four month study of its impact on traffic and the environment, which also gives de Blasio room to maneuver for his cronies who don’t like Uber. While de Blasio lost this round, the battle is not over.

Opponents of Uber would have you believe they are concerned about corporate greed (but not government greed or government cronyism). You should be aware of some history about government regulation of transportation.

The progressive political class doesn’t like Uber because it threatens the flow of money into their coffers. They claim they are trying to protect people and to protect the environment, but to quote the mayor, “Let’s not kid ourselves about their motivations.”

bias, bullies, bureaucracy, capitalism, corruption, culture, Democrats, elitism, extortion, government, greed, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, politics, progressive, propaganda, public policy, regulation, scandal, video

abortion, bias, censorship, corruption, cover up, culture, elitism, extremism, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal

More criticism for media cowardice on Planned Parenthood news

MRC’s Rich Noyes Slams Media’s ‘Pathetic’ Coverage of Planned Parenthood
July 24, 2015 by NB Staff

MRC Research Director Rich Noyes appeared Friday on FNC’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and he slamed the “pathetic” coverage by the broadcast networks of the Planned Parenthood scandal. Regarding the undercover sting video of the abortion activists discussing the selling of body parts from aborted babies, Noyes derided: “If this had been a hidden camera expose, say, of a conservative politician, you would be seeing a lot more [coverage].”

He added: “But this is a hidden camera expo of a liberal group that gets half a billion dollars in federal money and the networks just don’t walk to talk about it very much.” Anchor Neil Cavuto praised the Media Research Center: “Rich, you helped provide these numbers and thank God for your organization.”

full article and video

Reporters Can’t Be Out of Questions for Planned Parenthood
July 26, 2016 by Tim Graham

Last Monday, Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist found a noticeable “lack of ferocity” on the Planned Parenthood tapes in the liberal media. So she composed a long list of questions incurious reporters should be asking if they somehow thought the story was prematurely exhausted. (Remember when they mocked George W. Bush as incurious?)

Hemingway also did a little Nexis searching to show how aggressively these same outlets could explore the issue of the Confederate flag, which isn’t involved in selling the body parts of dead babies, but draws more outrage from “objective” reporters (this was before the second tape, which was mostly ignored):

You should also bookmark where Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services told the Federalist that the Planned Parenthood scandal was not a “breaking news story of general public interest” in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

full article

Liberal Media Defend Planned Parenthood, Censor Word ‘Baby’

In an ironic “I know you are but what am I” moment, Planned Parenthood tried to portray its critics as elitist monarchs trying to silence them. But it is, in fact, Planned Parenthood who is acting precisely in that way.

Planned Parenthood Defends Killing Babies and Selling the Organs by Tweeting Popular Children’s Movie Character
July 25, 2016 by Christian Datoc

Screen_Shot_2015-07-24_at_1-e1437760654143In an almost nonsensically insensitive move, Planned Parenthood defended itself from accusations that it is selling aborted fetus organs on the black market by tweeting an image of a character from the popular children’s movie, “Minions.”

The film — released this past year — is a prequel to the critically acclaimed “Despicable Me” but has not lived up to the expectations of its predecessors, receiving a rating of “54% rotten” on Rotten Tomatoes’ Tomatometer. According to the reviews, the latest movie lazily recycles beloved parts from the first two installments, in what can only be described as a greedy scam to suck every last dollar out of the venture. (Read more from “Planned Parenthood Defends Killing Babies and Selling the Organs by Tweeting Popular Children’s Movie Character” HERE)

abortion, bias, censorship, corruption, cover up, culture, elitism, extremism, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, news media, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal

culture, diversity, extremism, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex

Rappers can praise misogyny, cop killing, rape, racism and more, but this is where we draw the line

original article: Media Highly Offended Eminem Rapped a ‘Transphobic’ Bruce Jenner ‘Slur’
July 27, 2015 by Tim Graham

The liberal media is on high alert for “transphobia,” especially when it comes to Bruce Jenner. No one is allowed to joke he’s still a male with male body parts. That’s doubly true for anyone in the entertainment industry, so you can imagine the reaction when rapper Eminem did a rap about tucking the bulge.

“Eminem’s freestyle rap slurs Caitlyn Jenner” was the USA Today headline. McPaper has become a blue-ribbon champion in political correctness. Kelly Lawler began on Friday:

Rapper Eminem, whose lyrics have tended to court controversy over the course of his career, performed a freestyle rap on Thursday’s Sway in the Morning show that contained a transphobic slur against Caitlyn Jenner.

“I invented prick, and that’s a true statement, I see the (expletive) in you, Caitlyn / Keep the pistol tucked like Bruce Jenner’s (expletive),” he rapped. After pausing he also added: “No disrespect though, not at all, no pun intended, that took a lot of balls.”

The deleted expletives were a B-word and a D-word for the bulge.

Entertainment Weekly had “Eminem freestyles transphobic slur against Caitlyn Jenner.” The liberals at Mic.com were especially angry: “Forever the Asshole, Eminem Attacks Caitlyn Jenner In New Freestyle.” Tom Barnes wrote: “It seems when their careers are ailing, sick men don’t stray from the hate they know….where Jenner will thrive and continue to make the trans struggle visible and human, Eminem will fade into obscurity — a perpetual reminder of how ugly the early 2000s could be.”

In Friday’s actual paper, USA Today gushed over Jenner’s new reality show “I Am Cait” in two separate articles before its Sunday premiere. On the front of the Life section, an article was headlined “Jenner’s publicity team has worked media magic.” (Alternative headline: “You had me at hello.”) Reporter Andrea Mandell explained the phenomenon she obsequiously joined:

With the help of power publicist Alan Nierob, whom Variety dubbed “the secret mastermind” behind Jenner’s transformation, she has mounted a stunningly orchestrated media campaign.

The Jenner takeover began in April, when Caitlyn gave an exclusive interview to ABC’s Diane Sawyer on 20/20, snaring more than 17 million viewers. Then the Olympian posed in a corset for Annie Leibovitz as Vanity Fair’s July cover girl, and set a new record – four hours and three minutes – for reaching 1 million followers on Twitter, besting President Barack Obama ) and Robert Downey Jr. (She now has 2.68 million).

On page two of the front section came an editorial headlined “Caitlyn Jenner helped me to love me.” Carey Mahoney is a digital producer at USA Today who found Jenner inspirational as he came out as bisexual. “Few things hurt more that someone invalidating a natural part of you. Especially when you’ve spent years invalidating it yourself.”

It’s always interesting to discuss someone denying their own body parts described as “natural.”

In watching her be so open about her story, I saw something: A person, just like me or you, who decided to keep going.

She ended the lie she’d lived for decades to free herself from intense emotional pain and to help others free themselves, too.

Caitlyn, you’ve succeeded. Even though our journeys are different, I couldn’t be more grateful, as a member of the LGBT community and as a human being.

culture, diversity, extremism, hate speech, homosexuality, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex

abortion, funding, scandal

An open letter to contributors to Planned Parenthood

To the companies who donate to Planned Parenthood,

You probably think you’re doing a good thing. After all, there are plenty of services Planned Parenthood provides to the public other than abortion. Even if PP is now obsolete, it’s in the realm of possibility that you sincerely believe you are doing good, “giving back” as we might say.

You may genuinely think you’re supporting a woman’s right to choose (to kill the child in her womb), though that same woman’s right to choose other things is curtailed in other facets of her life. You may genuinely believe you are supporting a woman’s right to control her own body, as if she has an absolute right to do that. But no one has that right. There are plenty of laws restricting our right to control our own bodies regarding the use of automobiles, tobacco, alcohol, medical procedures, and many other things. No one has an absolute right to control his/her own body. But you seem okay with a woman’s right to kill her baby.

Now you have something else to be proud of: supporting the selling of body parts of aborted babies. You may think you’re being responsible and thoughtful in supporting PP’s efforts to sell baby body parts because it’s “for science” or because it’s supposedly “not for profit”. Eww, profit. That would be the last straw wouldn’t it? Or is a Lamborghini okay as far as compensation for trafficking in body parts?

There are plenty of horrible things happening in the world, that’s nothing new. I can’t do anything about most of them. There are lots of battles I think need to be fought and I have to pick which ones I can actually affect. This is one of them.

Some of you offer products or services I currently use. But you have competitors who offer such products and services as well. So there is something I can do.

From this point forward I will divest myself of your company. It’s going to be easy in some cases, difficult and painful in others. But I will do it none-the-less. You do not have a monopoly on what you offer. So I have a choice in whose products or services I will use. Planned Parenthood is involved in some evil things and I choose not to pay for products or services of companies who support them. That’s the way we do things in America, isn’t it?

You can ignore the despicable and extreme things PP is involved with. That’s your choice. You can pretend PP does only good things. That’s also your choice. And you have the choice of what philosophies or what manner of “public good” you will support. Where I spend or don’t spend my money is my choice. I am exercising my right to choose.


A concerned American

P.S. If you would be willing to admit your past financial contributions to Planned Parenthood and vow to cease all such contributions effective immediately I would be willing to reconsider boycotting your company. Though I’ve seen plenty of lies produced by Planned Parenthood I doubt they erroneously listed all of you on their website as contributors.

culture, extremism, ideology, islam, reform, religion, terrorism

Moderate imam reveals how radicals won battle for soul of Boston mosques

original article: Moderate imam reveals how radicals won battle for soul of Boston mosques
July 22, 2015 by Brooke Singman

A moderate imam who raised alarms more than a decade ago about a radical shift at two controversial Boston mosques he led for decades says he was ousted for his efforts by a local doctor whose son joined ISIS and replaced by a man now with the infamous Pakistani terrorist group behind the 2008 Mumbai bombings.

Imam Talal Eid told FoxNews.com that creeping radicalism put him increasingly at odds in the late 1990s with the board of directors of the Islamic Center of New England, where he served from 1982 until 2005. But when Eid, nominally in charge of the religious teaching at the center’s mosques in Sharon and Quincy, resisted, he was left in fear for his safety and eventually driven out by Dr. Abdul-badi Abousamra, at the time a prominent endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and president of the 1,500-member Center.

“At times, I was fearful for my safety,” said Eid, a former member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom who now runs a mosque in Toledo, Ohio. “When I would stand up for what I believed in, and there was a clash, you see how I could be scared.”

Abousamra, who has since moved to Doha and could not be reached for comment, was one of the Boston Muslim community’s most powerful and prominent figures in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In addition to being the center’s president, he was vice president of the Muslim American Society of Boston, which ran the Islamic Society of Boston, a Cambridge mosque that shared many members with those run by the Islamic Center of New England.

All three mosques have ties to a host of known and suspected terrorists, including Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the brothers behind the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; Aafia Siddiqui, aka “Lady Al Qaeda,” the Pakistani woman and Usama bin Laden associate now serving an 86-year federal sentence; and, more recently, Usaama Rahim, the 26-year-old man killed by police last month after brandishing a knife and allegedly plotting to behead Boston cops.

Even as Abousamra was exerting a radical influence on the leadership of mosques he helped run, law enforcement authorities say his son, a Northeastern University graduate raised in the Boston suburb of Stoughton, was training in Middle Eastern terror camps, aiding Al Qaeda and plotting attacks on U.S. soil. Ahamad Abousamra left Boston for Syria in 2006 while under investigation for terror-related charges that would later lead to an indictment, and is now believed to be running ISIS’ social media operation.

While mosques around the nation have disavowed terrorism, with many leaders working with law enforcement authorities to report suspicious activity, the infighting at the Boston mosque described by Eid shows that behind the scenes, mosque leaders are not always on the same page.

When Eid was ousted from the center, it soon became clear which direction leaders wanted to go. He was replaced by Muhammad Hafiz Masood, an assistant imam who had been forced on him in 1998 by Abousamra and who was known for fiery sermons easily interpreted as promoting violence.

“This is when I started to fear for my safety,” Eid said. “I was pushing for one thing, and the board was pushing for something else, and I was alone facing them.”

A year after Eid left, Masood fled the U.S. after being arrested for visa fraud. He resurfaced in Pakistan, where he is now spokesman for the Pakistani terrorist organization Jamaat-ud-Dawah, a group founded by his brother, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. Saeed also founded Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Pakistani terrorist group behind the 2008 coordinated bombings in Mumbai that killed 164 and wounded hundreds more. Law enforcement sources say the two groups are one and the same.

Eid said he was not aware at the time of the radicalization of the younger Abousamra, which included a 2002 trip to Yemen where he trained at a terrorist camp with Massachusetts pal Tarek Mehanna. Abousamra fled to Syria in 2006, but in 2009 he and Mehanna were indicted on federal terrorism charges, including providing material support to Al Qaeda in Iraq – the precursor of ISIS – and an aborted plot to attack a suburban Massachusetts mall. Mehanna is serving a 17-year federal prison sentence.

Abousamra, a graduate of Northeastern University who grew up in the affluent suburb of Stoughton, is said to be a computer whiz who has risen to the top of ISIS’ media operation. He is rumored to have been killed in a recent airstrike in Syria, but the FBI, which has a $50,000 bounty on him, could not confirm that.

“Although aware of the reports, the United States government has not yet confirmed any change in the status of Ahmad Abousamra,” the FBI said in a statement to FoxNews.com.  “He will remain on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists List until the time a confirmation in change of status is made.”

No one from the center’s current administration returned repeated requests for comment from FoxNews.com. While it is unclear whether the radicalizing impact of Masood and the senior Abousamra on the three Boston-area mosques lingers today, the non-profit organization Americans for Peace and Tolerance believes many of Masood’s supporters remain in leadership roles in the Boston Muslim community.

“There are many dots connecting Masood and his associates to terrorist activity in the city, past and present,” Americans for Peace and Tolerance Director of Research Ilya Feoktistov said. “With two ISIS-inspired terrorist plots thwarted in the Boston area in the past two months, the threat of radical Islamic terrorism to the city continues to grow.”

Eid stressed that the vast majority of Muslims at the Center’s mosques and at houses of worship throughout the nation attend for any other reason than to pray and reflect on the message of the Koran. It is up to leaders to ensure that moderate voices like his are not drowned out by the shrill calls to radicalism, he said.

“Do we need to wait for a tragedy to happen?” Eid said. “We need to allow more moderate Muslim voices so that life can go smoothly in our society.”

culture, extremism, ideology, islam, reform, religion, terrorism