In a letter to Congress intended to defend its practices and attack its hidden-video critics, Planned Parenthood wound up lending credence to accusations that it manipulates rules on selling fetal organs to maximize profit. Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, admitted in an 11-page letter Thursday that its affiliates have accepted payments ranging from $45 to $60 “per tissue specimen” from abortions, but said that they were reimbursements to cover costs, which federal law allows. But she also said that “adjustments that facilitate fetal tissue donations rarely occur at our few clinics that offer women this service,” prompting David Daleiden of the pro-life Center for Medical Progress to declare that she had proved the point of his group’s investigation — that “adjustments occur.” Several of the videos showed Planned Parenthood representatives haggling over prices — and in one case joking about wanting a Lamborghini — with people they thought represented biotech firm purchasers. “Both of these admissions speak to Planned Parenthood’s financial benefit and profit motive for supplying fetal tissue, and both are the points CMP’s videos have documented and illustrated from the very beginning,” Mr. Daleiden said in a statement. He disputed Ms. Richards‘ contention that the $45 to $60 per specimen payment was charged only to cover costs, saying that tissue-procurement organizations “handle all dissection, packaging and shipping of fetal organs” while Planned Parenthood spends “10 minutes consenting a patient.” “And when a Planned Parenthood doctor manipulates the abortion to get higher-quality baby parts, they are prizing Planned Parenthood’s financial interests ahead of women’s health,” he said. Ms. Richards‘ letter comes with four House and Senate committees investigating concerns raised in eight undercover videos released by the center since July 14, which show Planned Parenthood and other officials discussing fetal tissue payments and surgical techniques designed to keep valuable organs intact. “I am writing today because we are doing as much as we can to collect the facts and share them with you,” Ms. Richards said. “We are also cooperating with the House and Senate committees that have requested relevant information from us.” She also described the results of an analysis conducted by a research company at the behest of Planned Parenthood, saying the review found evidence of “selective editing,” “splices,” distortions” and other “manipulation” in the undercover videos. “This review ultimately concluded that the manipulation of the videos and the transcripts means they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries unless supplemented by the original video in unaltered form,” said Ms. Richards. The unedited videos have all been posted. She insisted that the videos lack “any credible evidence that Planned Parenthood has done anything wrong.” “All of Mr. Daleiden’s efforts to entrap our affiliates into potentially illegal contracts failed,” she added. Mr. Daleiden countered by dismissing the report as a “complete failure,” calling it a “desperate, 11th-hour attempt to pay their hand-picked ‘experts’ to distract from the crimes documented on video.” The “forensic analysis” was conducted by Fusion GPS, led by a former Wall Street Journal reporter and described by the conservative Weekly Standard as “an opposition research firm with ties to the Democratic Party.” Mr. Daleiden also noted that the analysis found “no evidence of audio manipulation.” “The absence of bathroom breaks and waiting periods between meetings does not change the hours of dialogue with top-level Planned Parenthood executives eager to manipulate abortion procedures to get high-quality baby parts for financially profitable sale,” he said. In her letter, Ms. Richards revealed that the videos have resulted in a dramatic drop in Planned Parenthood’s involvement in providing fetal tissue for medical research.
Oh, I’m sure! This whole issue is beyond disturbing. It should make any clear thinking person want to vomit. Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, THIS is very wrong. And, it’s nauseating to think that we are forced to pay for these sorts of things with our hard-earned tax dollars. To that end, we join the chorus of those who are calling on Congress to defund ALL public funding of Planned Parenthood. That organization has every right to exist. But, they do NOT have a right to have the American tax payer fund their operations. If someone wants to use their services, that’s fine. But, don’t ask me or anyone else to pay for it.
America — land of the free and home of the beer drinkers. If there’s one thing that’s certain, it’s that Americans love their beer. This is probably why VinePair, a website that covers alcoholic beverages of all kinds, conducted a study on what brands of beer Americans drink the most. The ranking was based on total annual sales. The results? As Huffington Post phrased it, “deep down, Americans are frat boys.” According to VinePair, these are the 10 best-selling beers in America, listed from least to most popular: Heineken, Busch, Michelob Ultra, Busch Light, Natural Light, Corona Extra, Miller Lite, Budweiser, Coors Light, and Bud Light. What is it about these mostly all-American brands that keeps people coming back for more? One would assume it’s the taste of the beer that makes sales so successful, but some of our tasters would probably disagree. To solve the mystery of why these brands are so successful, we decided to conduct a taste test. In the test, the participants — all of them beer-drinking employees at The Daily Meal — blind-tasted each beer from the list, and, as you’ll see, our palates didn’t exactly match up with America’s at large. Take a look at the results of our taste test of the best-selling beers in America. After you see what our team had to say about how they tasted, ask yourself: When it comes to beer, what do the people value?
#1 on their list is Heineken.. I can kinda see that. But, the rest of this list is beyond laughable. Miller Light? Coors light? Seriously? That’s piss-water used for cooking or by fraternities because its cheap. Trust me, I know from personal experience. And Corona? How trendy and cliche! Gimme a break… Oh well.. They should throw in some Dry Dock and other tasty microbrews. But, hey.. It’s the Daily Meal…and this time they get thumbs down from The Daily Buzz.
From allowing Iran to keep enriching uranium to abandoning “anywhere, anytime” inspections of Tehran’s nuclear facilities, the Obama administration has crossed many of its own red lines in the nuclear deal that will lift tough economic sanctions on America’s longtime adversary. In December 2013, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said one of the requirements of a good deal with Iran would be to “help Iran dismantle its nuclear program.” He said it was “the whole point” of the sanctions. But the actual deal? It doesn’t require Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. Iran gets to keep some of its uranium-enriching centrifuges and other aspects of its infrastructure. In November 2013, Mr. Kerry said Iran has “no right to enrich” uranium. The actual deal? Iran gets to continue enriching uranium, although it must get rid of two-thirds of its centrifuges and can’t enrich the material to weapons grade. President Obama said he wanted inspections “anywhere, anytime” of Iran’s nuclear facilities to ensure Tehran is adhering to terms of the deal. But the actual agreement? Iran gets 24 days’ notice of inspections of suspicious sites. A secret side deal allows Tehran’s own inspectors to check a military site where work on nuclear weapons was thought to have been carried out. “To be conservative, I’d say at least a dozen red lines have been crossed,” said Michael Rubin, a security specialist at the American Enterprise Institute. “John Kerry is about as credible as Baghdad Bob and probably no more interested in the predominance of American security.” The president and his advisers defend the deal as the best possible and say it will prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that the agreement “will be a significant constraint on Iran’s nuclear program.” “This is reducing their uranium stockpile by 98 percent, unplugging thousands of centrifuges, essentially gutting the core of their plutonium heavy water reactor and agreeing with the [International Atomic Energy Agency’s] request for information and access that’s required to complete their report about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program,” Mr. Earnest said. In Vienna, Iranian officials warned the U.N. agency Tuesday not to bow to pressure from Congress to detail its investigation into Tehran’s past nuclear work, saying Iran will not accept any leaks of their discussions. Iranian Ambassador Reza Najafi said accusations that Iran ever worked on nuclear weapons were baseless. “The IAEA should at the same time exercise utmost vigilance to ensure full protection of all confidential information coming to its knowledge,” Mr. Najafi told reporters. “We won’t accept any kind of leakage of classified information by anyone.” The resistance from Iran prompted Rep. Mike Pompeo, Kansas Republican and a prominent critic of the deal, to renew his call for the administration to release any secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran. “From refusing to let the United States see the secret side agreements, to failing to explain if the IAEA will be allowed to inspect its Parchin military site, Iran is already acting as a bully — dodging questions and telling lies to hide its bad behavior,” Mr. Pompeo said. “Every member of Congress must at least demand that the administration provide us with this entire agreement before we have to vote on this critically important matter of national security.” Words vs. deal Critics in Congress and elsewhere point to the administration’s own words to outline how the deal falls short of what the U.S. hoped to achieve. The Foreign Policy Initiative, a right-leaning think tank in Washington, has highlighted at least 20 areas of the agreement where the administration’s rhetoric doesn’t jibe with the text of the accord. For example, in 2013, Mr. Obama said he envisioned a deal that was so restrictive of Iran’s nuclear program “that they, as a practical matter, do not have breakout capacity” to build atomic weapons. The agreement, however, contains many provisions that expire after a decade or 15 years, making it impossible to claim that it permanently blocks Iran’s path to nuclear weapons. The president told NPR in an interview this month, “Essentially we’re purchasing, for 13, 14, 15 years, assurances that the breakout is at least a year.” The easing of sanctions is another issue. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress this summer that “we should under no circumstances relieve pressure on Iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking.” But under the nuclear agreement, sanctions on conventional arms are to be lifted in five years and missile sanctions in eight years. James Phillips, a senior research fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at The Heritage Foundation, also criticized “crazy” provisions in the agreement that will protect Iran from certain “snapback” sanctions on deals that Tehran signs between the lifting of sanctions and any violation of the nuclear accord.
Words vs Deal….indeed! Obama’s words mean absolutely nothing. Remember the “red line” he drew with Syria, and then “Baby” Assad shrugged his shoulders and stepped over that line…and Obama did nothing? Remember that? So, this is hardly surprising. But, it’s VERY dangerous. The President is supposed to America FIRST. Obama puts America LAST. And, instead of making our enemies fear us like he’s supposed to, Obama cozies up to them and caters to them. Just look at how Obama and Sec. John Kerry are just bending over and grabbing their ankles with Iran…and Russia…and Cuba…and China…and on and on. We all know that Obama is an agenda-driven, extreme liberal, socialist that would like to transform America into a western European socialist state. That’s not news, nor is it even moot. BUT, his desire to weaken the United States, and openly put our country’s national security at risk is a brazen violation of his oath of office. Not only is he a national embarrassment, he’s our country’s greatest national security threat.