After an exhaustive search of bathrooms from New York to Colorado, a private server containing a cache of Hillary Clinton's top secret emails has been been discovered in a Nevada outhouse. The revelation ends months of speculation about the whereabouts of thousands of missing emails.
The FBI, government committees and a federal judge have been investigating the former Secretary of State's handling of classified documents. Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing in the matter, while stonewalling, prevaricating and obfuscating.
In an effort to disclose the truth about the content of the emails, here is a sample of the communications contained on the outhouse server, which was formerly used by Democrat Harry Reid to hide his land deals.
TOP SECRET (chelsaclinton@importantdaughter.net)
Give my favorite grand baby a hug. I never can remember its name. By the way, is it a boy or a girl.
Hill
CLASSIFIED (HumaAbedin@embarassed.net)
Hey, your husband Anthony texted me a picture of his Weiner. What's that about? I thought I was the only one dealing with a spouse who couldn't keep his pants on.
Hill
EYES ONLY (AlgerianprimeMinister@moneybags.net)
It was nice shaking your hand today at the two-minute reception in my office. Remember to write a generous check for $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Bill always speaks fondly of you Algerians.
Hill
SUPER SECRET (GeorgeSoros@scumbag.net)
While I was in Iraq, I stumbled upon some insider information on the country's currency. You may want to place a bet on the Iraqi rial at the opening of the markets. Just saying. Kindly write two checks to the Clinton Foundation and one to my future presidential library.
Hill
UNBELIEVABLY SECRET (headOfclintonFoundation@moneylaundering.net)
I am submitting a reimbursement invoice for 32 bottles of champagne, two nights in a Paris hotel, a private jet and yoga pants. These items and services were purchased in connection with my work with the Clinton Foundation while I was hosting a dinner for fat-cat campaign donors.
Hill
TOO SECRET TO MENTION (OmarTheTentmaker@shadybusiness.net)
The latest batch of pants suits you sent me were a little tight around my ample hips. I thought I made it perfectly clear that I had quit Jenny Craig. I hear there is a used circus tent for sale in Indiana. You might check out the fabric.
Hill
WAY, WAY SECRET (CherylMills@coverupartist.net)
Those nasty Republicans on the Benghazi committee are snooping around again. They want to know if I personally rejected requests for embassy security. Change the signatures on all my State Department documents to John Kerry. Anyone dumb enough to negotiate that nuclear deal with Iran won't have a clue.
Hill
BEYOND SECRET (ValdPutin@russianbear.net)
I saw a picture of you in today's New York Times riding a horse without your shirt. Wow! I mean there was a tingle down my leg. Unlike you, our president has a body like a toothpick. I'm flying to Moscow this evening to reset your buttons!
Hill
NO ONE CAN SEE THIS SECRET (Bubba@AshleyMadison.net)
I did not appreciate you sharing the fact that you never used email after I told journalists that I deleted private communications between us. Lie for me like I did for you all those years. By the way, man up and gain some weight. You look like a scarecrow standing next to me.
Hill
YOU WILL HAVE TO BE KILLED IF YOU READ THIS (JoeBiden@hairplugs.net)
Really? You would oppose me for president? This must be some cruel joke. Unless you grow breasts, you don't have a chance. I am going to be the first woman to occupy the Oval Office...well, unless you count that tramp Monica.
Hill
These explosive emails are only a harbinger of things to come. At some point in the next 12 months, a foreign government, professional hacker or political operative is bound to release the real emails Mrs. Clinton hid, destroyed or withheld.
Those emails may be the final blow that ends her second bid for the White House. Or she could be the first president in United States history to endure a perp-walk during her inauguration speech.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Monday, August 24, 2015
Explaining the Trump Phenomenon
Billionaire. Braggart. Blowhard. Birdbrain. Those are just a few of the sobriquets the unscrupulous media have showered on presidential candidate Donald Trump. The media cabal is flabbergasted by his poll numbers and outraged by his naked contempt for journalists.
In an callow attempt to explain his meteoric rise, journalistic imbeciles have resorted to amateur psychology. Their theory is that The Donald speaks for the great unwashed, those slow-wits who are drawn to celebrities like moths to a flame. Their fascination will wane and Trump's star will fade.
These self-anointed pundits are dead wrong on both counts. Trump's seductiveness can be explained in the context of the Republican Party's fall from grace with its conservative base. Despite media and Republican insider efforts to destroy him, Trump will outlast most in the crowded field.
He may not capture the GOP nomination, but the fiery Trump has exposed the chasm of dissatisfaction that is tearing at party unity. The disaffected are fed up with the inside the Beltway political clique. They no longer trust their own party to do the right thing. They hunger for change.
Ironically, the man running against the party's Old Guard is a product of their pathetic failure to deliver on their promises. Republicans vowed, "Just give us the House and we will stop Obama." Voters responded by handing the GOP a decided edge in the House of Representatives.
The flaccid House leadership produced only symbolic votes. Then Republicans whined, "Just give us the Senate and we will stop Obama." In the last election, the GOP assumed the majority in the Senate. Despite the upper hand in Congress, Republican leadership has squandered its plurality.
Republican voters have watched as the weak-kneed political aristocracy has botched every opportunity to brake the Obama agenda. The president has run roughshod over bumbling Republican leaders, while mocking their ineptness. No wonder most voters have lost faith in the party.
Trump, despite the media's smear tactics, has emerged as the candidate who best articulates the antipathy GOP voters feel toward party nobility. He unabashedly derides Washington's political elite, sneering at their incompetence. He eschews political correctness to the chagrin of party pols.
His message has helped other Washington outsiders like fellow candidate Ben Carson benefit from voter frustration. Trump is giving a voice to the bubbling rebellion within the party against the ruling class symbolized best by Congressional leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
Trump has also tapped into a smoldering issue with the Republican base. Many GOP voters have thrown up their hands in exasperation over their party's impotency in dealing with illegal immigration. Most Republicans want their leaders to adopt a hard line on the issue.
A Pew Research poll conducted in June found nearly 60% of Republicans say their party no longer reflects their views on immigration. A majority (58%) view a path to legal status for illegal immigrants as a reward for breaking the law. By comparison, only 23 percent of Democrats agree.
There is deep-seated unrest among conservatives with what they see as the party's breech of contract with its base in an effort to pander to the Hispanic vote. Capitalizing on that disgruntlement, Trump has made illegal immigration reform the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.
Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he has correctly read the GOP political tea leaves. Republicans covet a candidate who will be hard-nosed on illegal immigration. They pine for someone who will fearlessly challenge the good old boy Washington lobbyist cartel.
Those in the media and his detractors would be wise not to underestimate Donald Trump. He has struck a nerve with many disgruntled voters, who are weary of hearing the latest feeble excuse from the GOP-controlled Congress on why it cannot change things in Washington.
Those in the Republican hierarchy who openly loathe Trump have no one to blame but themselves for his surge to the top spot among party presidential candidates. Trump has found traction with voters because the GOP establishment has turned its back on its conservative base.
In an callow attempt to explain his meteoric rise, journalistic imbeciles have resorted to amateur psychology. Their theory is that The Donald speaks for the great unwashed, those slow-wits who are drawn to celebrities like moths to a flame. Their fascination will wane and Trump's star will fade.
These self-anointed pundits are dead wrong on both counts. Trump's seductiveness can be explained in the context of the Republican Party's fall from grace with its conservative base. Despite media and Republican insider efforts to destroy him, Trump will outlast most in the crowded field.
He may not capture the GOP nomination, but the fiery Trump has exposed the chasm of dissatisfaction that is tearing at party unity. The disaffected are fed up with the inside the Beltway political clique. They no longer trust their own party to do the right thing. They hunger for change.
Ironically, the man running against the party's Old Guard is a product of their pathetic failure to deliver on their promises. Republicans vowed, "Just give us the House and we will stop Obama." Voters responded by handing the GOP a decided edge in the House of Representatives.
The flaccid House leadership produced only symbolic votes. Then Republicans whined, "Just give us the Senate and we will stop Obama." In the last election, the GOP assumed the majority in the Senate. Despite the upper hand in Congress, Republican leadership has squandered its plurality.
Republican voters have watched as the weak-kneed political aristocracy has botched every opportunity to brake the Obama agenda. The president has run roughshod over bumbling Republican leaders, while mocking their ineptness. No wonder most voters have lost faith in the party.
Trump, despite the media's smear tactics, has emerged as the candidate who best articulates the antipathy GOP voters feel toward party nobility. He unabashedly derides Washington's political elite, sneering at their incompetence. He eschews political correctness to the chagrin of party pols.
His message has helped other Washington outsiders like fellow candidate Ben Carson benefit from voter frustration. Trump is giving a voice to the bubbling rebellion within the party against the ruling class symbolized best by Congressional leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
Trump has also tapped into a smoldering issue with the Republican base. Many GOP voters have thrown up their hands in exasperation over their party's impotency in dealing with illegal immigration. Most Republicans want their leaders to adopt a hard line on the issue.
A Pew Research poll conducted in June found nearly 60% of Republicans say their party no longer reflects their views on immigration. A majority (58%) view a path to legal status for illegal immigrants as a reward for breaking the law. By comparison, only 23 percent of Democrats agree.
There is deep-seated unrest among conservatives with what they see as the party's breech of contract with its base in an effort to pander to the Hispanic vote. Capitalizing on that disgruntlement, Trump has made illegal immigration reform the centerpiece of his presidential campaign.
Whatever you think of Donald Trump, he has correctly read the GOP political tea leaves. Republicans covet a candidate who will be hard-nosed on illegal immigration. They pine for someone who will fearlessly challenge the good old boy Washington lobbyist cartel.
Those in the media and his detractors would be wise not to underestimate Donald Trump. He has struck a nerve with many disgruntled voters, who are weary of hearing the latest feeble excuse from the GOP-controlled Congress on why it cannot change things in Washington.
Those in the Republican hierarchy who openly loathe Trump have no one to blame but themselves for his surge to the top spot among party presidential candidates. Trump has found traction with voters because the GOP establishment has turned its back on its conservative base.
Monday, August 17, 2015
The Issue No Candidate Wants To Discuss
There is one topic every presidential candidate has paid lip service to but offered little else. The incendiary issue threatens the nation's financial security. A former Federal Reserve chairman calls it an "extremely dangerous" risk that could undermine the U.S. economy.
The concern is the unparalleled rise in entitlement costs. Federal budget expenditures for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and food assistance programs were 19.2 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) last year. In 2005, entitlements accounted for 15.5 percent
Spending on entitlements in the 2015 budget is projected at $2.45 trillion. That is 65 percent of the federal budget. Entitlements are categorized as mandatory spending, since the government is obligated to fund the programs. So-called discretionary spending comprises 29 percent of the budget.
Spending levels for mandatory programs are determined by eligibility rules. Once Congress sets those guidelines, the amount of money allocated from the federal budget is driven by estimates on how many people are expected to enroll in the programs. No cuts or increases are allowed.
Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan bluntly assessed the issue in a recent interview. "To me the discussion today shouldn't even be on monetary policy, it should be on how we constrain this extraordinary rise in entitlements." Greenspan headed the Fed from 1987 to 2006.
In 2014, the government had to borrow $39 billion just to cover the deficit in the Social Security program, the most costly federal entitlement. And the yawning gap between Social Security taxes and benefit payments is estimated to widen in coming years as more people reach retirement age.
The federal government lumps Social Security with Disability Insurance in the budget. The two entitlement programs combined are projected to reach $1.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities in the next ten years. By 2033, 18 years from now, government trustees estimate the programs will be insolvent.
For clarification purposes, an unfunded liability can be a confusing accounting term. It simply means that the programs will owe more money to current and estimated future beneficiaries than it has funds to pay for those benefits.
Absent some reforms in eligibility requirements, the federal government will be faced with Draconian choices. It can slice benefits to those receiving Social Security and Disability Insurance by 23 percent across the board or raise taxes by that amount. Neither choice has political appeal.
Soaring entitlement costs have increased pressure on the government to keep raising the nation's debt ceiling. At the end of July, the federal debt had climbed to a staggering $18.649 trillion. The interest on that debt, $229 billion this year, chews up 6 percent of all federal spending.
In 2015, the government expects to use its credit card to rack up another $583 billion in debt. The borrowed money pays for 16 percent of the government's budget expenditures. Despite all the claims to the contrary, Washington continues to spend money it does not have.
This year's $3.8 trillion federal budget is the largest in American history. And no one believes it will ever be lower or remain at the current level. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the country will return to trillion dollar annual deficits by 2025.
The reason for the projection is the aging of the population. As the Baby Boom generation retires, more people will be tapping into Social Security and other entitlements. Despite the inevitability, no one currently inside the Beltway or presidential candidate seems willing to offer solutions.
One reason for the do-nothing sentiment is the federal government has benefited from historically low interest rates. That explains why the country has added trillions in debt without wrecking the economy. When rates rise as expected, the interest on the nation's debt will explode.
Ballooning interest payments will consume a larger and larger chunk of the federal budget. That will make borrowing more money to cover deficits an even riskier proposition. Each dollar borrowed will become more expensive for the federal government.
Since 72 cents of every dollar collected by the government comes from individual taxpayers, this is an issue that impacts almost every American. For that reason, those running for president should be required to offer solutions, not just lip service, to the impending entitlement crisis.
The concern is the unparalleled rise in entitlement costs. Federal budget expenditures for Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and food assistance programs were 19.2 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) last year. In 2005, entitlements accounted for 15.5 percent
Spending on entitlements in the 2015 budget is projected at $2.45 trillion. That is 65 percent of the federal budget. Entitlements are categorized as mandatory spending, since the government is obligated to fund the programs. So-called discretionary spending comprises 29 percent of the budget.
Spending levels for mandatory programs are determined by eligibility rules. Once Congress sets those guidelines, the amount of money allocated from the federal budget is driven by estimates on how many people are expected to enroll in the programs. No cuts or increases are allowed.
Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan bluntly assessed the issue in a recent interview. "To me the discussion today shouldn't even be on monetary policy, it should be on how we constrain this extraordinary rise in entitlements." Greenspan headed the Fed from 1987 to 2006.
In 2014, the government had to borrow $39 billion just to cover the deficit in the Social Security program, the most costly federal entitlement. And the yawning gap between Social Security taxes and benefit payments is estimated to widen in coming years as more people reach retirement age.
The federal government lumps Social Security with Disability Insurance in the budget. The two entitlement programs combined are projected to reach $1.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities in the next ten years. By 2033, 18 years from now, government trustees estimate the programs will be insolvent.
For clarification purposes, an unfunded liability can be a confusing accounting term. It simply means that the programs will owe more money to current and estimated future beneficiaries than it has funds to pay for those benefits.
Absent some reforms in eligibility requirements, the federal government will be faced with Draconian choices. It can slice benefits to those receiving Social Security and Disability Insurance by 23 percent across the board or raise taxes by that amount. Neither choice has political appeal.
Soaring entitlement costs have increased pressure on the government to keep raising the nation's debt ceiling. At the end of July, the federal debt had climbed to a staggering $18.649 trillion. The interest on that debt, $229 billion this year, chews up 6 percent of all federal spending.
In 2015, the government expects to use its credit card to rack up another $583 billion in debt. The borrowed money pays for 16 percent of the government's budget expenditures. Despite all the claims to the contrary, Washington continues to spend money it does not have.
This year's $3.8 trillion federal budget is the largest in American history. And no one believes it will ever be lower or remain at the current level. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the country will return to trillion dollar annual deficits by 2025.
The reason for the projection is the aging of the population. As the Baby Boom generation retires, more people will be tapping into Social Security and other entitlements. Despite the inevitability, no one currently inside the Beltway or presidential candidate seems willing to offer solutions.
One reason for the do-nothing sentiment is the federal government has benefited from historically low interest rates. That explains why the country has added trillions in debt without wrecking the economy. When rates rise as expected, the interest on the nation's debt will explode.
Ballooning interest payments will consume a larger and larger chunk of the federal budget. That will make borrowing more money to cover deficits an even riskier proposition. Each dollar borrowed will become more expensive for the federal government.
Since 72 cents of every dollar collected by the government comes from individual taxpayers, this is an issue that impacts almost every American. For that reason, those running for president should be required to offer solutions, not just lip service, to the impending entitlement crisis.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Obama's Stealth Effort To Alter Your Neighborhood
If you like the neighborhood where you live, you may soon have no voice in what happens in your own subdivision. The federal government has a plan to strip suburbs and communities of self-rule as a way of restricting the freedom of Americans to control their surroundings.
That may sound Orwellian, but the future may be far worse than imagined after the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) begins administering a vaguely-worded 377-page rule issued under the media radar on July 8. It went into effect on August 8.
Known euphemistically as the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule, it is the brainchild of social engineers in the Obama Administration. It is an attempt to achieve economic integration by arming the government with rules to control access to local education, transportation and parks.
And that's just a partial list of how extensive the federal tentacles will reach into every neighborhood in America. For instance, the government can ignore local zoning laws and insist low-cost housing complexes be built in exclusive single-family communities.
The new rules, two years in the making, will be phased in over an unspecified time. Provisions give the government the ability to force suburbs to effectively be annexed by cities to comply with racial and ethnic quotas. Local communities and suburban cities will be at the government's mercy.
In announcing the final rule, HUD secretary Julian Castro praised the regulatory incursion because it will "promote access to community assets such as quality education, employment and transportation." His carefully crafted words make it sound as if no one could oppose such a Utopian idea.
However, Castro tipped the government's heavy-handed approach when he added the following:
"Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child's future."
Castro, rumored to be presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's choice for a running mate, provided a further hint of the rule's intent when he said it would "provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity."
The key word here is "rich." Translation of Castro's government-doublespeak: Your federal government wants to relocate poor people to neighborhoods with "wealthy" ZIP codes to provide them access to the best schools, parks, municipal services and low density housing.
In announcing the final rule, HUD secretary Julian Castro praised the regulatory incursion because it will "promote access to community assets such as quality education, employment and transportation." His carefully crafted words make it sound as if no one could oppose such a Utopian idea.
However, Castro tipped the government's heavy-handed approach when he added the following:
"Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child's future."
Castro, rumored to be presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's choice for a running mate, provided a further hint of the rule's intent when he said it would "provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity."
The key word here is "rich." Translation of Castro's government-doublespeak: Your federal government wants to relocate poor people to neighborhoods with "wealthy" ZIP codes to provide them access to the best schools, parks, municipal services and low density housing.
If you have read this far, you are probably wondering: How come I haven't heard about this new rule?
The reason is that the Obama Administration and its lackey news media do not want Americans to learn about this intrusive federal power grab until it is too late for anything to be done about it. A front-page article in the Washington Post peremptorily defended the rule the day it was released.
Since then, the media has been silent about the explosive new regulations. Like so many maneuvers by this administration, the Obama team uses regulatory decrees to make laws that would never pass muster in Congress. As long as the masses remain mum, it will continue unabated.
Every American needs to get involved in this battle to save local rule. You have no right to complain if you shake your head and do nothing else. Act or you will be soon living with the consequences of federal government social engineering.
Every American needs to get involved in this battle to save local rule. You have no right to complain if you shake your head and do nothing else. Act or you will be soon living with the consequences of federal government social engineering.
Monday, August 3, 2015
Planned Parenthood: Taxpayers Support Butchery
Planned Parenthood's decades old charade as a women's health provider has been shattered. A number of covert videos have exposed the agency's macabre practice of offering baby's organs and limbs for sale to the highest bidder after crushing the life out of fetuses.
In chilling detail, four videos released by the pro-life Center for Medical Progress capture high-ranking Planned Parenthood officials and others casually discussing how unborn babies are ripped and sucked apart in a grisly manner in order to harvest their tiny body parts.
Faced with a grave crisis that threatens to cripple the agency, officials of the organization have turned to legal means as a last-ditch measure to stop the exposure of its horrific practices. A California judge has issued a temporary injunction to halt the release of more damning videos.
This is like the Nazi's condemning the United States for issuing news reels showing images of the Jewish death camps. Planned Parenthood, which receives more than $500 million annually in taxpayer funds, should be held accountable for what goes on behind its closed doors.
Before the videos, most Americans had no idea that the agency sold baby hearts, arms, livers and kidneys. Planned Parenthood had certainly never been forthcoming about the practice. When it came to light, the organization acted as if no one could possibly object to the barbaric business.
In one ghastly video, a technician who worked for a company that partnered with Planned Parenthood, describes how dead fetuses are dissected and their parts sold to researchers. Images show a technician using tweezers to pick through aborted fetal tissue for intact body parts.
The latest graphic video features a Planned Parenthood vice president discussing how babies who are delivered "before the procedure" can be used to harvest the organs intact. In other words, babies taken from the womb while they are alive, are not spared the gruesome extermination and harvest.
This is the tawdry side of abortion that Planned Parenthood concealed from the public for years. The organization and its supporters portrayed abortion as the removal of a lump of cell tissue. Their propaganda was designed to dehumanize the life that was being terminated.
Now it turns out people are learning that these so-called aborted "lumps" have brains, legs, hearts, livers and kidneys. That doesn't sound anything like a lifeless clump of nothing. The truth has sent Planned Parenthood cowering for cover, hiding behind the shield of women's health care.
For example, supporters of the outfit point to the life-saving mammograms offered by Planned Parenthood. A recent investigation revealed of 30 branches in 27 states not a single one offered breast-cancer screenings. Most didn't even have a mammogram machine.
In full-damage control mode, Planned Parenthood has raised the specter of women losing access to other health screenings and birth control. That is pure nonsense. Under Obamacare, the federal law mandates those things are covered by insurance and are offered by countless physician practices.
Planned Parenthood is more worried about its image because it does not want to spook corporate donors, who pour millions into the agency. The list includes a who's-who of firms, including Home Depot, Nike, Starbucks, Johnson and Johnson, Disney, Whole Foods, Gap and 71 other companies.
Planned Parenthood exists for only one purpose. It is a modern day death camp that exterminates the lives of helpless babies and sells the leftovers for as much as it can get. A society that can justify such cruelty and evil has lost its sense of decency.
If the law allows Planned Parenthood to continue its bloody business, then at least American taxpayers should not be forced to pay a single dime to support such savagery.
In chilling detail, four videos released by the pro-life Center for Medical Progress capture high-ranking Planned Parenthood officials and others casually discussing how unborn babies are ripped and sucked apart in a grisly manner in order to harvest their tiny body parts.
Faced with a grave crisis that threatens to cripple the agency, officials of the organization have turned to legal means as a last-ditch measure to stop the exposure of its horrific practices. A California judge has issued a temporary injunction to halt the release of more damning videos.
This is like the Nazi's condemning the United States for issuing news reels showing images of the Jewish death camps. Planned Parenthood, which receives more than $500 million annually in taxpayer funds, should be held accountable for what goes on behind its closed doors.
Before the videos, most Americans had no idea that the agency sold baby hearts, arms, livers and kidneys. Planned Parenthood had certainly never been forthcoming about the practice. When it came to light, the organization acted as if no one could possibly object to the barbaric business.
In one ghastly video, a technician who worked for a company that partnered with Planned Parenthood, describes how dead fetuses are dissected and their parts sold to researchers. Images show a technician using tweezers to pick through aborted fetal tissue for intact body parts.
The latest graphic video features a Planned Parenthood vice president discussing how babies who are delivered "before the procedure" can be used to harvest the organs intact. In other words, babies taken from the womb while they are alive, are not spared the gruesome extermination and harvest.
This is the tawdry side of abortion that Planned Parenthood concealed from the public for years. The organization and its supporters portrayed abortion as the removal of a lump of cell tissue. Their propaganda was designed to dehumanize the life that was being terminated.
Now it turns out people are learning that these so-called aborted "lumps" have brains, legs, hearts, livers and kidneys. That doesn't sound anything like a lifeless clump of nothing. The truth has sent Planned Parenthood cowering for cover, hiding behind the shield of women's health care.
For example, supporters of the outfit point to the life-saving mammograms offered by Planned Parenthood. A recent investigation revealed of 30 branches in 27 states not a single one offered breast-cancer screenings. Most didn't even have a mammogram machine.
In full-damage control mode, Planned Parenthood has raised the specter of women losing access to other health screenings and birth control. That is pure nonsense. Under Obamacare, the federal law mandates those things are covered by insurance and are offered by countless physician practices.
Planned Parenthood is more worried about its image because it does not want to spook corporate donors, who pour millions into the agency. The list includes a who's-who of firms, including Home Depot, Nike, Starbucks, Johnson and Johnson, Disney, Whole Foods, Gap and 71 other companies.
Planned Parenthood exists for only one purpose. It is a modern day death camp that exterminates the lives of helpless babies and sells the leftovers for as much as it can get. A society that can justify such cruelty and evil has lost its sense of decency.
If the law allows Planned Parenthood to continue its bloody business, then at least American taxpayers should not be forced to pay a single dime to support such savagery.