You don’t have to hide when you are doing the right thing

From Life News, via Donald Douglas:

Planned Parenthood Threatens TV Stations Demanding They Censor Shocking Undercover Videos
By Sarah Zagorski | July 28, 2015 | 5:12PM Washington, DC

+The latest video released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) shows a Planned Parenthood technician sorting through “tissue” collected after a first trimester abortion. As LifeNews previously reported, this is CMP’s third undercover video showing the abortion company negotiating the sale of aborted babies’ body parts with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company.

The footage features Dr. Savita Ginde, who is the medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM). Currently, PPRM is one of the largest and wealthiest Planned Parenthood affiliates and operates abortion facilities in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada. Dr. Ginde tells the actors that she wants to charge per “tissue sample” because that will bring in the most money. She said, “I think the per-item [pricing] works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

However, now the abortion giant is trying to stop news stations from airing the recent footage because it supposedly violates patient privacy. In a letter to TV stations in Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota, they attacked CMP by calling them an “extreme activist organization whose sole mission is to prevent women from accessing health care and to destroy Planned Parenthood.”

Well, yes, that’s right: CMP is trying to destroy Planned Parenthood, but they wouldn’t be if Planned Parenthood was just about contraception and health care, and not an abortion provider.

Planned Parenthood President and Chief Executive Officer Cecile Richards, a very pretty woman with a very ugly soul.

Interestingly, their allegations sound very similar to what Planned Parenthood’s CEO and President, Cecile Richards, said on her first public interview with ABC News after the first two videos were released. She too tried to link CMP with “militant abortion activists” and called their investigations a “three-year, well-funded effort by the most militant wing of the anti-abortion movement in this country to try to entrap doctors, and, of course, highly-doctored videos.”

Unfortunately, for Planned Parenthood, editing only goes so far and CMP released the full, unedited videos with their clips. The truth is Planned Parenthood doesn’t want the truth to come out about their abortion business and will do whatever they have to in order to stop it.

There’s more at the link, including direct quotes from the letter Planned Parenthood sent to news stations.

Planned Parenthood “doctors” and staff.

If a house is infested with roaches, when you walk into a room and turn on the light, all of the roaches scurry for cover . . . and that is exactly what Planned Parenthood is doing, running and trying to hide in the dark corners.

Let’s tell the truth here: if what Planned Parenthood was doing was all fine and acceptable and above board, Cecile Richards wouldn’t care about the covertly filmed videos, not that they’d ever have been released, because they wouldn’t be news. You don’t have to hide when you’re doing the right thing.

Abortion is a very ugly business, and the abortionists have to keep as much of what they do as possible kept quiet, kept hidden away, kept secret. They are counting on a certain squeamishness among the American people to keep them from looking too closely, which is why groups like the Center for Medical Progress perform such a valuable service; they are the ones who turn on the lights, so we can all see the cockroaches running for cover.

Bad news on home ownership

From ZeroHedge:

US Middle Class Stays Dead: Homeownership Drops To 48 Year Low; Median Asking Rent Soars To All Time High
Tyler Durden's picture

Three months ago, just as the last Census Homeownership and residential vacancy report hit, Gallup released its latest survey which confirmed just how dead the American Dream has become for tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans.

According to the poll, the number of Americans who did not currently own a home and say they do not think they will buy a home in “the foreseeable future,” had risen by one third to 41%, vs. “only” 31% two years ago. Non-homeowners’ expectations of buying a house in the next year or five years were unchanged, suggesting little change in the short-term housing market.

As Gallup wryly puts it, “what may have been a longer-term goal for many may now not be a goal at all, and this could have an effect on the longer-term housing market.”

Earlier today, the US Census released its latest homeownership data, which confirmed that for what is left of America’s middle class, owning a home has become virtually impossible, with the homeownership rate plunging from the lowest level since 1986, or 63.7%, to just 63.4% the lowest reading since the first quarter of 1967.

Three months ago, when compiling this data we said that “at this rate, by the end of the 2015 and certainly by the end of Obama’s second term, the US homeownership rate will drop to the lowest in modern US history.” That moment, as shown on the chart below, came far sooner than ever we had expected. The only question is whether the lowest homeownership print on record reported in 1965 and standing at 62.9% will be taken out in the next 2 quarters or in early 2016.

There is no surprise why this is happening. As Bloomberg notes, the biggest culprit is wage growth which “hasn’t kept up with surging home prices. The average household income in June was 4 percent below a record high set in early 2008, even as unemployment dropped to its pre-recession rate, according to Sentier Research LLC.”

“We’re still suffering the effects of the housing collapse and the financial crisis,” said Mark Vitner, senior economist with Wells Fargo Securities in Charlotte, North Carolina. “We may have another percentage point to go before we see a bottom” in the homeownership rate, he said.

Yes, it is safe assume that the imminent lowest homeownership print in US history may be the “bottom.”

Still, the ongoing death of the middle class is not bad news to everyone: landlords, of which private equity firm Blackstone recently became the biggest in the US, are reaping unseen profits courtesy of runaway inflation in at least one item: rent.1

Because as homeownership falls, demand for rental housing is booming. The vacancy rate for rented homes in the U.S. fell to 6.8% in the first quarter from 7.5% a year earlier. It was the lowest first-quarter rate since 1986.

And the punchline, which should come as no surprise to anyone: the median monthly asking rent just rose to a record $803 across the US. Words, however do not do the relentless increase in rent justice, so here is something far better.

There’s more depressing news at the original.

Home ownership has traditionally been the the most important investment Americans could make, and it was just as much of a working-class as a middle-class investment.2 The home was something which the working family bought, and paid for, frequently over thirty years, but was then something the family owned, free and clear, in the owners’ later working and retirement years. More, as inflation moved slowly ahead, the principle and interest parts of the mortgage payment remain constant, thus reducing the homeowners’ payments, in real terms, as the years passed.34

But something bad happened. As homes were being considered more an more of an investment, too many people took out too many second, and even third, mortgages, borrowing against their equity, to buy consumer goods, thus adding on payments which ate away at any advantage gained when inflation lowered the real value of the first mortgage payment. Add to that the too-easy money of the first decade of this century, which allowed too many people who really shouldn’t be mortgage-worthy to get mortgages, and while home ownership rates soared, bad loans multiplied, crashing the entire market.

To me, the problem is two-fold. First, we have seen a marked tendency to larger, more expensive homes; my common phrase is that people used to have six kids in a 1,500 ft² home, and now everybody thinks they need a 3,500 ft² home to bring up one child. Not only do people want larger, more luxurious homes, as networks like HGTV push, but builders learned along time ago that profit margins were higher in building fewer, larger houses. This is pricing the entry-level home buyer out of the market, and leaving people who already have “starter” homes afraid that they cannot upgrade, because they fear not being able to sell their current homes. Second, not only will renters not see the real value of their housing payments gradually declining, but too many people will retire while still having mortgage or rent payments to make.5

Eventually, this will lead to some serious economic disruptions in our economy, as people will be reaching retirement age without any real prospect of being able to live on their Social Security benefits and 401(k) savings; having to pay rent, or still having several years of mortgage payments to make will impoverish many senior citizens.

  1. Full disclosure: the Editor of The First Street Journal is a landlord. We are renting out only one property, our retirement home in Kentucky, because we do not want the house to just sit vacant until we retire. Our actual income from the property is small, but we are still landlords.
  2. As I have said before, I consider everyone who works for a living to be working class, whether he is a laborer or a bank president. I am taking this distinction here not because it is one in my mind, but because my definition is not that widely shared.
  3. This is not true of adjustable-rate mortgages, something I consider to be a truly stupid thing to take out, unless the buyer is planning on selling the home within the first two years.
  4. The taxes and insurance parts of the payment do tend to increase as time passes.
  5. We do not have a mortgage on our retirement home; we paid cash for the property.

Democrisy! Hillary Clinton uses fuel hogging private jet to go to and from her climate change proposals presentation

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — or at least her campaign staff — tweeted:

William Teach mocked her:

Woman Who Made Massive Fossil Fueled Travel An Accomplishment Really Worried About Climate Change
By William Teach July 27, 2015 – 7:59 am

The question here is, is Hillary Clinton serious about “climate change”, or is she just pandering to the unhinged Lefty base? While she has included Hotcoldwetdry in negotiations and pronouncements previously, she has never seemed very passionate about the issue. During her time at State, it seemed more of a box check and an extension of Obama’s beliefs:

(Bloomberg) Hillary Clinton on Sunday set two “bold national goals” to combat climate change, promising that if she’s elected president, she would set the United States on a path toward producing enough clean renewable to power every home in America within a decade.

She would also initiate a process that would bring the total number of solar panels installed nationwide to more than half a billion before the end of her first term, her campaign said in a fact sheet released Sunday as it also posted a video in which Clinton lays out her ambitions.

“We cannot wait any longer” to act on climate change, the Democratic front-runner says in the video. “It’s time we stand for a healthier climate, stand for cleaner air, for science, for innovation, for our children, for reality, for the future.”

Say, I wonder how many solar panels are on her homes? I’m betting she won’t answer. Right now, though, she has gone all in on this patronizing push

There’s more at the link, but the answer to Mr Teach’s question about whether Mrs Clinton is actually serious about “climate change” comes from the Daily Mail:

EXCLUSIVE: Video shows Hillary Clinton boarding private jet just hours after launching global-warming push – and she’s using a FRENCH aircraft that burns 347 gallons of fuel every hour!

  • Distinctive French-built Dassault Falcon 900B airplane was spotted in Des Moines, Iowa Monday afternoon, with Hillary Clinton climbing the stairs
  • An aide held a giant umbrella over her head so her hair didn’t get wet 
  • The 19-seater jet whooshed Clinton from Iowa to New Hampshire with the ink still drying on her presidential campagn’s climate change agenda
  • Plane burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour and costs $5,850 per hour to rent
  • Its itineraries are secret because the owner has asked the Federal Aviation Administration to withhold flight plans from the public


Just hours after Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign’s push to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon-cutting plan, she sauntered up the steps of a 19-seat private jet in Des Moines, Iowa.

The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. And like all Dassault business jets, Hillary’s ride was made in France.

The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.

CARBON MONSTER: The Dassault Falcon 900B business jet burns 347 gallons of jet fuel per hour, and was Hillary Clinton’s ride of choice on Monday (seen entering the jet in her light blue pantsuit)

On Monday the Democratic presidential front-runner announced the details of her initiative to tackle climate change, calling it ‘one of the most urgent threats of our time.

But shortly afterward, a videographer working with the conservative America Rising PAC spotted her at the private air terminal in Des Moines.

Fifteen seconds of video shot just after 12:00 noon, local time, shows Clinton walking up the plane’s stairs while an aide hodls a giant black umbrella over her head to shield her from falling rain.

‘Despite her campaign’s best efforts to rebrand her as a down-to-earth fighter for “everyday Americans,” Hillary Clinton’s jet-setting ways are just further confirmation that she’s out of touch with the American people,’ the group’s communications driector Jeff Bechdel told

‘It’s that kind of hypocrisy that makes the majority of voters say Clinton is not honest or trustworthy.’

There’s more at the link, but you can bet your last shilling that good American newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post won’t have a word about his kind of thing.

There are really only two explanations for this:

  1. Either Hillary Clinton thinks that climate change is nothing but hogwash, but she’ll use it in her campaign to keep the left on board; or
  2. Mrs Clinton believes that climate change is something real, but that the elites are simply too far above everybody else to be concerned with having to conserve themselves.

In either case, she’s nothing but a liar. Of course, we’ve known that all along.

Rule 5 Blogging: United States Marine Corps

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for our version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacy McCain described as putting pictures of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Scarlett Johansson in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. Click on any picture to see full sized. Today: United States Marines!

Captain Sarah Deal, the first female Marine Corps helicopter pilot, flies a CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopter from HMH 466, MCAS Tustin, California, over Camp Pendleton while training during Exercise KERNEL BLITZ ’97. KERNEL BLITZ is taking place off the coast of Southern California and Camp Pendleton to train Navy and Marine Corps personnel in amphibious operations.

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: United States Marine Corps’ »

Necessity, they say, is the Mother of Invention . . .

. . . but some things should never have been necessary. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Pee on these S.F. walls? Be prepared for them to pee back
By Lizzie Johnson Updated 9:58 am, Friday, July 24, 2015

Beware, public urinators, some of San Francisco’s walls now pee back.

Public Works crews have finished painting nine city walls with pee-repellant paint and more are in the works. The painted surfaces make urine spray right back onto the shoes and pants of unsuspecting relief-seekers. It’s the city’s latest attempt to clean up urine-soaked alleyways and walls.

“We are piloting it to see if we can discourage people from peeing at many of our hot spots,” Public Works Director Mohammed Nuru said. “Nobody wants to smell urine. We are trying different things to try to make San Francisco smell nice and look beautiful.”

The latest pee-prevention tactic should help curb late-night revelers and indigents who answer nature’s call on city walls, Nuru said.

He demonstrated a painted wall’s effectiveness at the 16th Street Bart Plaza Thursday. A sign reading, “Hold it! This wall is not a public restroom. Please respect San Francisco and seek relief in an appropriate place,” hung above it. It doesn’t explicitly state that the wall will fire back, so some surprises are in store.

There’s more at the original.

You know, those of us in flyover country have often been told just what rednecks and rubes we are, and how we ought to listen to our betters in the more sophisticated cities on the coasts, but somehow I’ve managed to never come across a wall in Jim Thorpe which smells of urine. I wonder why that is?

The development of the coating, Ultra-Ever Dry, from Ultra-tech, a Florida company in the chemical cleanup and waste management business, was done for applications in oh-so-sophisticated Europe, where it was used at St. Pauli’s quarter in Hamburg. But I keep coming back to the obvious question: why was it necessary to spend time and money developing this in the first place. Aren’t the much more cosmopolitan denizens of our great cities suppose to know that you don’t pee on the walls?

From Around the Blogroll

Oh, now this will surely help!

U.S. Preparing to Release Convicted Israeli Spy Jonathan Pollard, Officials Say
Some administration officials hope freeing spy may smooth relations with Israel after Iran nuclear deal
By Devlin Barrett | Updated July 24, 2015 6:52 p.m. ET

The Obama administration is preparing to release convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard from prison, according to U.S. officials, some of whom hope the move will smooth relations with Israel in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal.

Such a decision would end a decades long fight over Mr. Pollard, who was arrested on charges of spying for Israel in 1985 and later sentenced to life in prison. The case has long been a source of tension between the U.S. and Israel, which has argued that a life sentence for spying on behalf of a close U.S. partner is too harsh. Israel has for years sought Mr. Pollard’s early release, only to be rejected by the U.S.

Now, some U.S. officials are pushing for Mr. Pollard’s release in a matter of weeks. Others expect it could take months, possibly until his parole consideration date in November.

A parole hearing for Mr. Pollard was held in early July. Mr. Pollard’s lawyer, Eliot Lauer, said he hasn’t heard from the parole commission “and I would expect that either I or my client would be the ones who would be notified.’’ That hearing would have been the moment for the U.S. to object to Mr. Pollard’s pending release. Mr. Lauer wouldn’t say if the government raised objections.

So, to smooth over tensions created when the Obama Administration agreed to life sanctions against Iran for a very sincere promise not to build nuclear weapons, an agreement that virtually all Israeli leaders, from the left and the right, say is an existential threat to Israel, we’re (probably) going to release the convicted spy. Yeah, that will make everything OK, won’t it?

Jonathan Pollard betrayed his country, and I am unmoved by the fact that he sold secrets to an ally, rather than an enemy. He should stay in prison until the day he dies.

And now, on to the blogroll!

That’s it for this week!

So, just who won with the Affordable Care Act?

With any legislation, there will be winners and losers, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is no exception. We already know who lost: people who already had health insurance lost, as they’ve seen their insurance rates skyrocket while being required to pay for coverage that they do not need. But who won? From The Wall Street Journal:

Fund Boss’s Gamble on Health Law Pays Off Big
Larry Robbins’s Glenview Capital Management has made realized and paper gains of more than $3.2 billion
By David Benoit | July 23, 2015 7:52 p.m. ET

Glenview Capital Management LLC made a bold decision when President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul was rolling out: Bet on it.

The result has been one of the most successful hedge-fund wagers in recent years. New York-based Glenview has realized and paper gains of more than $3.2 billion since it started making investments in hospitals and insurers four years ago, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of securities filings.

The fund is run by Larry Robbins, a billionaire hockey fanatic known for his sermonizing investor letters. Its latest win comes courtesy of Anthem Inc., the nation’s second-largest health insurer by revenue, which is expected to announce a $48 billion-plus acquisition of rival Cigna Corp. as early as Friday, according to people familiar with the matter. Glenview owns shares in both companies, as well as in insurers Aetna Inc. and Humana Inc., which struck a $34 billion deal of their own three weeks ago. Shares of all four companies have rallied in anticipation of tie-ups.

The passage of the Affordable Care Act, known as “Obamacare,” has riled executives throughout corporate America over concerns about its costs and deeper government involvement in a key industry. But while the health-care industry, many investors and individuals wrestled with the uncertainties created by the law, which was passed in 2010, a team at Glenview was laying the groundwork for the wager early on.

They reasoned as early as 2007 that the health-care system in the U.S. was likely to change, with more people gaining coverage and mergers in the future for hospital operators and health insurers. They largely stuck to that thesis through two presidential campaigns, a congressional brawl and a pair of cliffhangers at the Supreme Court.

There’s a lot more at the original.

Is it any surprise that the insurance industry liked Obaminablecare? It guaranteed them a significant increase in the number of customers, along with government subsidies to help them pay. The health care industry liked it as well, because it guaranteed them fewer non-paying patients.

And now we find out — not that we didn’t already know it — that Wall Street likes it as well, and the financial wizards are making billions of dollars on health care reform. As long as you aren’t a working American, you pretty much made out, either through increased investment earnings, or taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.

It’s only if you are a working American, who already had health insurance — which was true of about 85% of the population — that you lost on this deal.

Related article from The Wall Street Journal:

Is it possible that the Commander-in-Chief does not like or respect the troops under his command?

I was talking to my sister-in-law on Monday evening; she is, or at least was, a die-hard Democrat, who voted for Barack Hussein Obama twice, but is finally, finally! having doubts that he really has the best interests of America at heart. The source of her change of heart is the agreement concerning Iran and its nuclear weapons program, and our esteemed President’s seeming antipathy for Israel.1

And now even The Washington Post is starting to question things:

Under fire for inaction, Obama orders flags lowered for Chattanooga victims
By Steven Mufson and Greg Jaffe | July 21 at 8:35 PM

The American flag is lowered to half-staff above the White House on July 21 to honor the five U.S. service members who were killed by a gunman in Chattanooga, Tenn., last week. (Andrew Harnik/AP) Click to enlarge.

PITTSBURGH — President Obama, facing growing criticism from conservatives and some veterans, ordered all American flags on federal grounds to be lowered to half-staff for the remainder of the week to honor the five service members killed at a naval reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn.The move was announced Tuesday, five days after the shooting rampage and just minutes after Obama delivered a speech here at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in which he defended his Iran nuclear deal, called for more military spending, and criticized Republicans for relying too heavily on military force and threats instead of diplomacy. . . . .

But even as he spoke, the president faced stinging criticism that he hadn’t acted swiftly enough to honor the dead by lowering the flag at the White House and federal buildings around the country.

“Oh one more thing, lower the FLAG!!!!!!!! Sir,” former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, author of the best-selling book “Lone Survivor,” wrote on his Facebook page.

That critique was then echoed on Capitol Hill, where House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) moved quickly to lower the flag to half-staff on the Capitol grounds.

And the money line:

The midsummer tempest highlighted how Obama — six years into his tenure as commander in chief — continues to be pressed to defend his patriotism, his support for the military and his toughness.

There’s more at the linked original.

President Obama is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States; the four Marines and the sailor who were killed in the Chattanooga terrorist attack were men under his command, men who had all either enlisted or re-enlisted after Mr Obama became President, and he showed them absolutely no respect until political pressure forced him into it.

I can understand that the President has a lot on his plate, all the time, every single day, and it might not have occurred to him that the flag needed to be lowered to half-staff in honor of the troops under his command being killed. But the political pressure had been building for three days to get that done, and the odds are vanishingly small that none of his political aides, people paid good money to keep on top of these things, never reminded the President that the flag needed to be lowered well before it finally was.

The obvious, but completely unprovable truth here2 is that someone had to have approached the President earlier and asked if the flag should be lowered to half-staff in honor of the victims, and President Obama said no.

It took more than five years, and congressional action, for the victims of the Fort Hood massacre to be considered anything other than victims of “workplace violence,” something that the President could have taken care of years previously . . . if he had wanted to do so; it’s obvious that he didn’t.

CBS News found that the Veterans Administration was discarding some veterans’ benefits claims. Would any VA leadership do that, risking going to jail, without orders from the top? And Fox News Insider reported just yesterday that a new VA whistleblower is alleging that:

34,000 men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan are losing their guaranteed five-year eligibility for VA service due to “systematic obstacles.”

(Scott Davis) explained that combat veterans are not required to verify their income when applying for VA benefits. But the enrollment applications of 34,000 such veterans were delayed when the VA system designated them as pending, because they lacked income information.

Davis said that when he notified VA officials of the issue, it was ignored.

He added that 16,000 of the 34,000 vets have already already lost their five-year eligibility, which he says was intentionally done by the VA.

Really what conclusion is reasonable, is even possible, other than that President Obama and his top staffers simply do not like the military, and that their actions, and inactions, and constant slights confirm this?

No man who does not respect the military should ever be elected to become the Commander-in-Chief. January 20, 2017 cannot come fast enough.


  1. No, my sister-in-law is not Jewish.
  2. We may have some proof in a few years when one of the President’s White House aides tries to cash out on his service by writing a tell-all book.

From the 2008 Elections From the Old Common Sense Blog

Question – Revised
Posted by Yorkshire on 27 October 2008, 6:31 pm
Sometimes I think of something, write, and miss the obvious. My Bad. So, to restate the question:

Can anyone name a person that has had an Influence on BO’s life that doesn’t have some radical past, other than most of his immediate family?

Iran and nuclear weapons
Posted by Dana Pico on 22 November 2008, 2:41 pm
From Styx at Reclaim Conservatism came the reference to this story:

Iran said to have enough nuclear fuel for one weapon
By William J. Broad and David E. Sanger
Published: November 20, 2008

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make, with added purification, a single atom bomb, according to nuclear experts analyzing the latest report from global atomic inspectors.