Author: Lila Rose is president of Live Action . Last weekend’s Super Bowl football game was a good metaphor for the fast-paced, ever-changing news on the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood. First, the country’s largest breast cancer charity announced that the nation’s biggest abortion chain would no longer be eligible for grant money. A mere 48 hours later, after a blistering assault from Planned Parenthood allies and media elites, Komen apologized and revised its new grant-making policy. Now, their future relationship with Planned Parenthood remains ambiguous, and Karen Handel, their pro-life Vice President has resigned, demonized by pro-Planned Parenthood media. It’s easy to get lost in the back-and-forth of the action and overlook the real significance of some of the “plays,” and even “touch downs,” we witnessed. Since its founding in 1982, the Komen Foundation has raised close to $2 billion to pay for breast cancer screenings, prevention programs, research, education, advocacy, and treatment. Since Planned Parenthood’s inception, they have killed over 5 million unborn children, raking in well over $2 billion from abortion alone. In fact, in just the last year, Planned Parenthood committed over 320,000 abortions, which now account for over 40% of its clinic revenue. Taxpayers, through the government, also give over $1 million per day to Planned Parenthood. And there is a small detail the media completely missed: Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms, the very valuable tool used to screen for breast cancer. My organization, Live Action, called dozens of Planned Parenthoods asking for an appointment for a mammogram and each and every time we were referred elsewhere. The organization has since admitted they don’t perform mammograms at any of their facilities. The abortion giant isn’t even allowed to conduct mammograms – the most they can do are manual breast exams and if a low-income woman needs one of those, the federal government pays for it. Planned Parenthood does not need Komen’s money, they need Komen’s credibility, which, ironically is now in the gutter because it was destroyed by Planned Parenthood. The abortion giant’s reputation has suffered heavily because of several investigations on the state level and now on the federal level. In just the last year, Live Action’s undercover footage revealed Planned Parenthood workers in seven clinics aiding and abetting the sex trafficking of young girls. Before that, they were caught on tape refusing to comply with mandatory reporting laws on child rape and abuse. Before that they were taped excitedly taking money earmarked to abort black babies. Contrast this reputation with the pretty pink ribbons and millions of men and women racing to find a cure for breast cancer. Whose side do you want to be on? The enormous hypocrisy that envelops Planned Parenthood is astounding, perhaps only surpassed by the media’s love of covering up the abortion giant’s offenses against women and children or their inaccurate reporting of what Planned Parenthood actually does for breast cancer screenings. Planned Parenthood is the offensive and corrupt organization, not the Komen Foundation. The Komen Foundation is not under investigation for possible criminal activity – that would be Planned Parenthood’s claim to fame. Yet somehow Planned Parenthood has the nerve to viciously attack Komen for refusing to fund their breast cancer screening referral program. Several Komen officials have been truthfully surprised at the backlash regarding their initial decision to defund Planned Parenthood. They were the targets of a mafia-style shakedown because they didn’t want the drama that came with funding the nation’s largest abortion provider. And it was Komen’s right to do so as a private non-profit giving money away in grants. Unfortunately media coverage of the entire fiasco would have readers believe that “women’s health” is synonymous with “abortions” when in reality they are two very separate entities and Komen–rightly–wanted to keep it that way. Planned Parenthood is nothing more than union thugs who want to be viewed through rose, errr, pink-colored glasses. Don’t be fooled.
CPAC excitement, Wolf Blitzer’s “OMG!” and a strange polling result are featured in the Thursday edition of the Morning Jolt : The Vice Presidency, a Key Part of the Federal Witness Protection Program Keep reading this post . . .
Read more:
Vice President Whatshisname
For some reason, Walter James Casper III doesn’t think I’m serious here. In response to my latest report, Casper continues to argue that nothing under the law prohibits him from his harassing contacts that I have repeatedly warned him not to make. See: ” Update On Big Talking Harassment-Blogger Capt. Fogg of ‘Human Voices’ .” I am not linking to his harassment blog or to Capt. Fogg’s. But Casper is arguing that the federal anti-harassment law requires either the distribution of pornography or anonymous contacts. That is not true. Federal statute 47 U.S.C. 223 prohibits anonymous harassment on the Internet and general harassment with the intent to annoy . As one writer indicates : Ok, let me put this in plain English for you, using the language of section 223 itself: Anybody who uses the Internet to post or email any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person has just committed a Federal crime, for which they can be imprisoned, fined, or both. By this definition, Casper’s repeated indecent and harassing contacts directed to me against my wishes constitute a federal crime — and this is why I will continue to repudiate Casper’s criminal activities, and why I will not be bullied into silence or intimidated into withdrawal. This is bigger than this one progressive’s attacks. Why on earth does Casper insist that he has a right to comment at the blog against my wishes, and why especially does he believe that he has a right to email me with malicious and annoying comments? The answer, of course, is that he’s a progressive totalitarian. Progressives do not and will not tolerate difference, and that is what has been driving Casper since he became a troll stalker at this blog years ago. After I banned him he refused to stay away. And he and his allies have taken their malevolence to another level — it’s simply obscene what assholes like this think they can get away with and I refuse to be bullied. The man runs a hate blog pure and simple. I have reported him to the police. And as I noted by the officer, Casper’s actions were indeed harassing and that such activities were possibly criminal actions under Section 653m of the California Penal Code. See my report: ” California Penal Code Section 653m on Criminal Harassment With Intent to Annoy: Report on Unwanted Illegal Contacts by Fascist Hate-Blogger Walter James Casper III .” Now, since Casper has argued that he is not restrained by state law I have indicated I will take it to the federal level. I am researching my options under the law. If the harassment continues I will be speaking to my U.S. representative, and I’ll contact federal law enforcement officials. I intend to show that Casper is harassing not only under Section 223 but that he may also be liable for federal civil rights violations. Casper’s harassment could be driven by both ideological and racial bigotry. See the FBI’s page, ” Hate-fueled crimes are not just a thing of the past .” Casper has a long history as attacking me as “halfrican’ and he’s also routinely made disparaging remarks against people of color, indicating, for example, that he judges people first by their racial and ethnic identities, which is a form of racial profiling. And top of that, I’ve long documented the racist hatred that’s routinely spewed in the comments at Casper’s harassment blog. It’s a vile repository of hate. It’s simply amazing that a radical leftist purportedly committed to racial equality could in fact be so filled with racial hatred as this. But again, progressives are totalitarian and I’m more than ready to use their racial rights regime to stop their own hate and intimidation. So, all this is for the record. Walter James Casper III is on warning once again to stop the harassment. No one should be subject to that kind of hatred and campaigns of destruction simply for ideological disagreements. But these are progressives, so this is what they do by their essence. Leftists are freaks, dirtbags, and secular demons. NOTE:
Well, speaking of progressive totalitarians , cowardly left-wing hate blogger Capt. Fogg has been talkin’ shit at Racist Repsac’s harassment blog. I’m not commenting at Casper’s, but
Sky watchers from Waco, Texas, all the way to Oklahoma City saw an unexpected meteor streak across last night’s sky. Watch the ABC News report with footage of the meteor making its way slowly across the screen: KIII TV reports that the Federal Aviation Commission has confirmed it was in fact a meteor. The footage was captured from a camera on a police vehicle but here’s the question of the day: Was the minivan in front of the cop car pulled over and did they still get a ticket?
Read this article:
What Was the Strange ‘Fireball’ That Lit Up the Texas Sky Last Night?
We’ve previously reported on Stephen Colbert’s laughable ( yet somewhat alarming ) presence in the 2012 Republican presidential primary. A Tuesday release of paperwork from his SuperPAC “Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” to the Federal Election Commission, could suggest that it is perhaps time we take him seriously. Earlier in the month NBC’s Chuck Todd delivered some harsh comments for the media’s indulgence of Colbert. “He is making a mockery of the system,” Todd said during a panel discussion at Winthrop University. “Yes, the process is a mess, but he‘s doing it in a way that feels as if he’s trying to influence it with his own agenda that may be anti-Republican.” “Both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have this ability to want to mock us in the media all the time, claim we don’t do our job, and then when you call them out on it, say ‘we’re just comedians,’” Todd went on to say. “Actually no you’re not anymore. You are mocking what we’re doing, you want a place in this, you’re also going to be held accountable for how you do your job.” The announcement of the $1,023,121 already raised by the SuperPAC, which has been used in the past to fund ads like “Mitt the Ripper,” may provide further credence to Todd’s claim that Colbert’s effect on the campaign is no joke. Prior to the announcement of the over $1 million raised, Colbert spoke about the FEC filing during his show last night: The Colbert Report Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes , Political Humor & Satire Blog , Video Archive
Here is the original post:
Colbert SuperPAC donations reach $1 million
AP – President Barack Obama fired a warning at the nation’s colleges and universities on Friday, threatening to strip their federal aid if they “jack up tuition” every year and to give the money instead to schools showing restraint and value.
View post:
Obama ‘putting colleges on notice’ on high tuition
(AP)
At Los Angeles Times : Trevor Potter is an unlikely repeat guest for a late-night comedy show. As the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, the courtly Washington lawyer is a leading expert on campaign finance law — not the kind of material that generates a lot of laughs. So the fact that he’s appeared seven times on “The Colbert Report” in the last year, helping host Stephen Colbert set up his own “super PAC” as part of a mischievous political parody, underscores an unexpected development in the 2012 presidential race: Super PACs have seized the zeitgeist. An indirect outgrowth of the Supreme Court ruling in the 2010 Citizens United case, the independent political groups have mushroomed in the last year. They are now dominating not just the action in key primary states such as South Carolina, but the political conversation. In the last month, the number of Google searches for the term “super PAC” was about five times higher than the last year’s monthly average. Spending by such organizations has exceeded $27 million already this year, according to the FEC, much of it going to biting television ads. Pummeled by super PACs aligned with their rivals, the Republican presidential contenders are now loudly denouncing their influence. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said in recent days that all of the candidates wished the outside organizations would disappear and that their outsized sway was “a very bad idea.” Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was forced to disavow an error-riddled documentary aired by a super PAC run by his former aides, while he and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum have had to defend themselves against attacks by Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC. At a campaign stop in Columbia, S.C., this week, Santorum accused Romney of sending “his henchmen” to spread disinformation. The complaints mark a sharp turnabout for Republicans, who had largely heralded the Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited corporate and union spending on campaigns. (The campaigns themselves remain under strict fundraising limits.) The candidates are not opposed to unlimited fundraising but, once confronted with how the decision is playing out, have blamed one another, not the court. Well, I kind of like all the ads actually. More at Washington Post , ” Obama ‘destroys’ Romney in new pro-Gingrich ad .”
