Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Tennessee’

Massive $300 Million Plant to Be Built in the United States, Trump Wins Again


Reported By Ben Marquis | November 21, 2017 at 2:42pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/massive-plant-built-trump-wins/?

President Donald Trump was elected in large part on a promise to revitalize our nation’s economy through pro-business and pro-growth policies that would produce countless new jobs for American workers. Though Congress has been dragging its feet when it comes to economy-boosting tax cuts and reform legislation, Trump’s administration has done what it can to spur job growth through cutting regulations and fostering confidence among businesses and consumers.

Fox Business reported this week that Tyson Foods, one of the biggest food companies in the world, will be building a massive new plant in Tennessee. The plant will cost an estimated $300 million to build and will provide for at least 1,500 new jobs processing more than 1.25 million chickens per week. The plant is expected to generate upwards of $150 million in additional revenue for the state.

“This project will enable us to provide even more fresh chicken to consumers across the country,” Tyson Foods president and CEO Tom Hayes said in a news release. “As one of the world’s leading protein companies, we continue to raise the world’s expectations of how much good food can do.”

The new plant, which is expected to begin operations in 2019, was initially planned as an even bigger facility in Kansas, but was ultimately shifted to Tennessee after local residents expressed opposition in Kansas.

“The (Tennessee) location is attractive to us because of the strong support we’ve received from state and local leaders, the existing industrial park and availability of labor, as well as access to feed grains produced in the region,” stated Doug Ramsey, group president of Poultry for Tyson Foods.

Meanwhile, Fox Business also noted that progress is already underway in Tennessee for construction of a massive, one million square foot factory in which LG Electronics will manufacture new washing machines. That plant is also expected to be operational in 2019.

But even though Kansas may have been passed over as the initial choice for the new Tyson chicken plant, the company still has its eye on the state for an additional expansion in the future, according to The Kansas City Star, meaning even more jobs and economic growth in the years to come.

“We have been fully aware they were considering multiple locations and planning to build more than one new complex,” explained Jackie McClaskey, Kansas’ secretary of agriculture. “We anticipate positive news in 2018 as we continue to work with multiple Kansas communities and Tyson.”

Even as plans for the one plant in Leavenworth County were placed on hold due to local opposition, other communities have expressed interest in being home to a new Tyson plant that will bring in jobs and revenue.

Nor are there any hard feelings — at least in public — at being initially passed over for a new Tyson plant, as the Kansas Department of Agriculture issued a statement congratulating both Tyson and Tennessee on working out a deal, with an obvious eye toward working together in the future.

“Consumer demand drives growth in the food and agriculture industry, and we have been aware throughout our own discussions with Tyson Foods that their expansion plans included multiple facilities in more than one state, so this announcement was not unexpected,” said department spokeswoman Heather Lansdowne.

“We look forward to continuing to work with Tyson Foods as they further evaluate expansion of their poultry business unit growth opportunities in Kansas,” she added.

Meanwhile, as American businesses expand manufacturing capacity here at home, Trump secured dozens of business deals with foreign nations such as China during his recent trip to Asia, according to CNBC.

It was estimated that, of just 37 deals struck with Chinese companies alone, roughly $250 billion will flow into the U.S. economy as a result.

Left unspecified are similar deals struck with businesses in the other nations Trump visited that could also result in tens of billions more in tax revenue initially and create an untold number of jobs.

This is what Trump was talking about when he repeatedly promised to Make America Great Again.

BREAKING: Tenn. Defies LGBT Bullies, Makes MASSIVE Move to Protect Christians


waving flagBy: Wilmot Proviso on April 30, 2016

Another state has taken a brave stand against the forces of LGBT political correctness: This week, Tennessee signed into law a major religious freedom act that allows therapists to refuse clients if their lifestyle and life goals violate their “sincerely held belief(s).” According to BuzzFeed (via WND), Tennessee’s Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican, signed the bill into law Wednesday, allowing therapists and other mental health professionals to refuse clients without fear of being sued.

The law was bitterly protested by LGBT groups as well as the American Counseling Association.

However, Haslam said that the law was necessary to protect the deeply held convictions of therapists as well as the mental health of their patients.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam

“I believe it is reasonable to allow these professionals to determine if and when an individual would be better served by another counselor better suited to meet his or her needs,” Gov. Haslam said in a statement.

“The substance of this bill doesn’t address a group, issue or belief system. Rather, it allows counselors — just as we allow other professionals like doctors and lawyers — to refer a client to another counselor when the goals or behaviors would violate a sincerely held principle.”

However, LGBT forces aligned against it, with one online petition calling the bill “hateful.” (I’ve never quite gotten how calling someone “hateful” for religious beliefs that might, at worst, slightly inconvenience them isn’t hateful itself, but this is just me.)

The petition claimed that “the lawmakers behind this bill don’t care about professional standards or truly helping those in need. Instead they are focused on forcing their personal religious beliefs into other people’s lives. Now innocent people seeking mental health care will pay the price it it passes.”Picture3

Let’s dissect that bit of nonsense.

  • First of all, this bill does not enable anyone to deny emergency care to anyone.
  • Secondly, if you’re forcing someone who is a therapist to work with a client to attain life goals that run counter to their religious beliefs, isn’t that forcing your religious beliefs on them?

Gay Rights Protesters

However, I can see arguments against those, particularly from LGBT individuals who might be reading this article. Or, perhaps you’re an atheist or a polyamorist, or someone else who might be affected by this bill.

Let me speak individually to you, then: Even if you disagree with everything I’ve said thus far, wouldn’t you prefer it if your therapist came straight out and told you he didn’t believe he or she could give you the care you deserve?

A relationship with one’s therapist is one of the most intimate, long-lasting professional medical relationships that a person can have. Given the amount of influence that therapist would have over my life, I would want to know whether they had a deeply held belief that something in my life I had no intention of changing was sinful or morally wrong.

Sadly, that line of reasoning won’t work on political correctness types. It’s not about respecting their beliefs, but rather forcing their beliefs on everyone else. You know, just like they’re accusing the supporters of this bill of doing.

This State Offered Free College Education. Here’s What Happened.


waving flagReported by Norbert Michel / / February 22, 2016

Aside from the subsidy/cost issue, there are many other reasons why this is bad public policy. (Photo: istockphoto)

Norbert Michel studies and writes about housing finance, including the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow in financial regulations. Read his research.

Several politicians have recently been offering free goodies to voters. One of the most popular of these, oddly enough, is something that several state governments have already tackled: free college tuition.

The details vary by state, but Oregon, Tennessee, Georgia, Michigan, and Louisiana (among others) all use tax dollars to pay for at least some of their residents’ college tuition.

Louisiana provides a great case study for advocates of similar federal policies.

Louisiana provides a great case study for advocates of similar federal policies. Louisiana just so happens to be in the news right now because the governor is threatening to suspend his state’s version of free college tuition for everyone.

Louisiana’s Tuition Program

Louisiana’s plan is called the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students, or, more commonly, TOPS. This extremely popular program uses tax dollars to pay full tuition (and some fees) at any of Louisiana’s public universities. Other than residency requirements, all high school students qualify as long as they have a C average (2.5 GPA) and at least an 18 on the ACT.

So the Taylor Opportunity Program for Students doesn’t cover every student’s tuition, but it ends up covering it for a large chunk of middle-/upper-class families.

How It Started

The program started out in the late 1980s as the brainchild of oil tycoon/philanthropist Patrick Taylor. The program, which wasn’t originally named for him, started out as a tuition assistance plan only for low-income individuals.

In 1997 the state removed the income caps. At that point, all Louisiana students, regardless of financial need, were made eligible for “free” tuition at any Louisiana public college. Once in college, students had to maintain a C average to keep their TOPS awards.

As of 2010, approximately 70 percent of Louisiana’s high school graduates headed to college within one year. That’s nearly 20 percent higher than the rate in 2000.

Who’s Paying for It?

It’s easy to call the program a success because of this increase, but it’s just as easy to point out that the program doesn’t really provide free education. In one way or another, someone pays for it.

In one way or another, someone pays for it.

The eventual implosion of the program was easy to predict back in 1997 for the same reasons that pretty much any similar subsidy is destined to fail. Subsidies don’t really lower the cost of products and services; they only lower the up-front price that some people pay.

(In 1997, this program inspired my very first public critique of a government policy. Back then, I thought it was a terrible idea.)

No Such Thing as Free Tuition

A person receiving “free” tuition may not see it (or even care), but subsides actually raise the total cost of an education. The core problem is that they remove the paying customer—in this case the student—from the equation.

Without the subsidy, the paying customer receives the direct benefit for the service and bears the direct cost. If that person doesn’t think the cost is worth it, they don’t pay.

Louisiana’s program replaces this paying customer with groups of government officials. These officials neither receive the direct benefit nor endure the direct cost of obtaining an education. These groups do, however, benefit a great deal from obtaining more of your tax dollars.

And they rarely bear any direct cost from either increasing your taxes or delivering a substandard education product. (The incumbency rate is fairly high for politicians.)

On a practical level, Louisiana’s program converts tuition payments into a state budget item. In other words, a large chunk of each school’s “tuition” becomes nothing more than revenue sent in by the state bureaucracy.

In Louisiana, four separate higher education systems—each its own bureaucracy—fight over these “tuition” payments. Smaller schools inevitably get the smallest shares, but that’s kind of another story.

A Burden on University Resources

When the influx of students hits—more people going to school when tuition is “free” is pretty much a foregone conclusion—it strains universities’ existing resources. So the transfer of money has the natural tendency to lead to expanded facilities, faculty, and staff.

But these increases call for a permanently higher level of funding, and all of these effects tend to reinforce each other. That is, school officials have a built in reason to ask for larger transfers, and politicians have a built in excuse to raise taxes.

When the state’s coffers are not flush with cash, the schools’ budgets get cut. Thus, universities have every incentive to raise more money from students who are not a part of the Taylor Opportunity Program.

Of course, for any given level of Taylor Opportunity Program students, a higher posted rate of tuition results in a larger transfer from the state. If the program covered full fees and tuition for literally every student, then taxpayers would bear the full cost. But it doesn’t, so non-TOPS students bear some of the cost.

(Pretty much every student ends up paying higher fees directly, too, but that’s almost an aside.)

Non-subsidized markets don’t work this way—prices can actually fall in response to changes in demand and supply. Subsidized systems, on the other hand, are destined to result in higher—not lower—tuition.

Recent numbers support this explanation. The Taylor Opportunity Program has nearly doubled in cost since 2008, and most of that increase has been due to higher tuition.

What I failed to fully appreciate in 1997 was how bad of a deal the Taylor Opportunity Program would end up being for the smaller schools. Then I spent almost a decade teaching at Nicholls State University, a regional state school in Thibodaux, La.

Small Universities Are Hardest Hit

In one sense, the Louisiana program amounted to a cruel trick for these institutions. Smaller schools are the ones least able to sustain the permanently higher costs associated with the new TOPS-generated revenue stream.

When the state budget goes south—and it always does in Louisiana—smaller schools get slammed. (Louisiana State University has more than 25,000 students, so small changes in per-student fees go a long way).

No matter how much we want it to, subsidizing something simply doesn’t make it more cost-effective.

The Taylor Opportunity Program does give certain people a better deal on tuition at one point in time, but then it makes up for it somewhere else.

Ironically, the earlier waves of Taylor Opportunity Program graduates are among those about to get hit with a tax increase. That’s what politicians mean by free.

Ironically, the earlier waves of Taylor Opportunity Program graduates are among those about to get hit with a tax increase. That’s what politicians mean by free.

Aside from the subsidy/cost issue, there are many other reasons why this is bad public policy.

First of all—and I know this sounds crazy—everyone should not go to college. Some people simply aren’t cut out, and many just don’t need to. Yes, people with college degrees tend to earn more than those without, but it does not follow that everyone should go to college.

When the program was started, Louisiana public universities offered students a good value because they were relatively inexpensive. Now that Louisiana taxpayers have spent more than $2 billion on the program, tuition rates are out of reach for many students that don’t qualify for the program.

While the best solution for Louisiana would be to get rid of the program altogether (unlikely since politicians love the program), the best residents can hope for now is an increase in the program’s academic standards and some form of means testing. At least these changes would better direct subsidies to academically prepared students with more financial need.

big Die Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Woman Sees Something Strange On McDonald’s Window – Immediately Gets Out Her Camera


waving flagPosted by B. Christopher Agee December 17, 2015

While the holiday season often reignites complaints among some Americans that there exists a cultural war on Christmas, one Tennessee motorist recently captured an image that shows not all references to Christ’s birth have been erased from public settings.

Amy Basel reportedly passed by the Spring Hill McDonald’s and noticed not only the traditional manger scene adorning the restaurant’s street-facing windows, but an explicitly religious message.

t03 t04

“His name is Jesus,” one window’s message proclaimed.

Another decorative statement encouraged visitors to “rejoice.”

As of this writing, roughly 36,000 Facebook users have shared the image. Among the thousands of comments Basel has received in the two days since posting the status update are numerous kind wishes to the McDonald’s staff responsible for displaying the biblical message.

“Thank you McDonald’s for taking a stand,” one commenter wrote. “You have made my whole year! I am so proud of you for the stand you took was for Christ our Lord.”

Some social media users encouraged other businesses to follow suit, while others recognized local merchants who already embrace the faith-based component of the season.

At least a few critics, however, suggested that the Christians applauding this business would not be so open-minded were its owners of a different faith.

“I’d love to hear all of those ‘freedom of religion’ folks [sic] tunes if this business was owned and decorated by people of Muslim faith,” one user wrote. “Y’all are always so accepting of religion until it’s one that isn’t your own!”words of another christian hater

Different Free Speech Ideologies In God We Trust freedom combo 2

In Wake of Paris Terrorist Attacks, Here’s a Map of the States Shutting Their Doors to Syrian Refugees


waving flagReported by Kelsey Harkness / / November 16, 2015

On Monday and into Tuesday, more than two dozen governors moved to block Syrian refugees from entering their states. (Photo: Kelsey Lucas/Visualsey)

In the aftermath of Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris, governors across the United States are attempting to shut their doors on Syrian refugees looking to find a safe haven in the country. As of Monday evening, more than two dozen governors announced opposition to policies that would permit Syrian refugees to enter their states amid concerns they could have ties to terrorists.

Thus far, states whose governors oppose more Syrian refugees include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, GeorgiaIdahoIllinoisIndiana, IowaKansas, Louisiana, MaineMassachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Maryland, NebraskaNew HampshireNew Jersey, New MexicoNorth Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, TennesseeTexas, and Wisconsin.

Kentucky Gov.-elect Matt Bevin, who will take office Dec. 8, also said he opposes resettlement efforts.

The movement, which was overwhelmingly spearheaded by Republican governors, came after French prosecutors discovered a Syrian passport on one of the suspected Islamic State suicide bombers in Paris. That finding raised concerns that terrorists are embedding with refugees to enter Europe and other nations.Do you want

The series of attacks in Paris on Friday night left more than 130 dead and hundreds others injured. French President François Hollande called the attacks an “act of war” and launched airstrikes against ISIS.

President Barack Obama sharply pushed back against the growing number of states attempting to undermine his policies surrounding Syrian refugees, saying Monday at a press conference in Antalya, Turkey, that it would be “shameful” and “not American” to close America’s doors on Syrian refugees.

“When some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,” he said. “That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”DELUSIONAL

In September, Obama vowed to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States next year.

As of Nov. 3, there were more than 4 million registered Syrian refugees, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency.

Those issuing executive orders to block refugees pushed back on the president’s narrative while announcing their decision.

“Michigan is a welcoming state, and we are proud of our rich history of immigration,” said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder. “But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents.”

In a letter addressed to the president, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said, “Neither you nor any federal official can guarantee that Syrian refugees will not be part of any terroristic activity. As such, opening our door to them irresponsibly exposes our fellow Americans to unacceptable peril.”Islam is NOT

While their responses send a clear message to the president, John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said the practical implications blocking refugees are limited.

“Governors can certainly order state agencies to stop doing anything to assist federal authorities with their resettlement efforts, but they cannot stop federal authorities from continuing those efforts, nor can they stop immigrants who are lawfully admitted to this country from moving to and settling in those states,” Malcolm said. “They can, however, ask state law enforcement authorities to keep an eye on the refugees who settle in their states, so long as those authorities do so within the bounds of the Constitution.”

“It’s abhorrent for the federal government not to consult with and consider the interests of the states,” added Jim Carafano, a foreign policy expert at The Heritage Foundation. “Particularly the views of governors, as it impacts the welfare and public safety of their citizens.”America Never Forget

Florida Gov. Rick Scott addressed those concerns in a letter sent to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. In that letter, dated Nov. 16, Scott wrote:

[I]t is our understanding that the state does not have the authority to prevent the federal government from funding the relocation of these Syrian refugees to Florida even without state support. Therefore, we are asking the United States Congress to take immediate and aggressive action to prevent President Obama and his administration from using any federal tax dollars to fund the relocation of up to 425 Syrian refugees (the total possible number of refugees pending for state relocation support at this time) to Florida, or anywhere in the United States, without an extensive evaluation of the risk these individuals may post to our national security.AMEN

muslim-obamaIn response, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., introduced legislation on Monday afternoon that would suspend issuance of visas to refugees from countries with a high risk of terrorism until the U.S. Department of Homeland Security meets certain standards. Those standards include fingerprinting and screening all refugees, implement a tracking system “to catch attempted overstays,” and enhancing security measures that are already in place.

“The time has come to stop terrorists from walking in our front door. The Boston Marathon bombers were refugees, and numerous refugees from Iraq, including some living in my hometown, have attempted to commit terrorist attacks,” Paul said in a press release.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, also called to suspend the refugee program.

“The Syrian refugee program should be suspended until the American people are satisfied that they know exactly who the president is admitting into the country via this program,” Burr said. “There is simply too much at stake, and the security of the American people should be our top priority.”

This article and its accompanying map has been updated to reflect the growing number of governors who do not wish to permit Syrian refugees into their state. of domenstic terrorist

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Full, Unedited 8th Video Confirms Planned Parenthood Sells Fully Intact Aborted Babies


waving flagPublished by Steven Ertelt   Aug 28, 2015   |   Washington, DC

Today, the Center for Medical Progress released the full, uncut video of the conversation between undercover investigators form CMP and top officials with StemExpress, which buys aborted babies and their body parts from Planned Parenthood. The full footage is of a shorter video that summarized the meetings earlier this week.

The release of the full, unedited video also comes one day after Planned Parenthood released a new report claiming the eight videos released exposing it were “altered.” The abortion giant says the videos were manipulated and therefore not eligible for serious inquiry by Congress, which has launched two joint investigations of the abortion corporation. Still, Planned Parenthood’s own paid for experts admitted that there was no evidence of any manipulation of the audio in any of the eight shocking videos.

The full two-hour-long video appears below:

full

While the videos have focused on the Planned Parenthood abortion business, the biotech firm StemExpress, which buys and resells aborted baby body parts from the abortion giant, has filed a lawsuit seeking to block some information the Center for Medical Progress obtained in its three year undercover operation. Just a short time after a judge issued a ruling that the biotech firm StemExpress can’t block the Center for Medical Progress from releasing videos, it put together a preview of its latest installment.

StemExpress is a for-profit biotech supply company that has been partnered with Planned Parenthood clinics across the country to purchase human fetal parts since its founding in 2010. StemExpress’ Medical Director, Dr. Ronald Berman, is an abortion doctor for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte in California.how many body parts

PP MonsterIn the video, Cate Dyer, the CEO of StemExpress, is shown in a lunch meeting with undercover operatives posing as representatives of a biotech firm. Dyer is laughing about how StemExpress purchases fully intact aborted babies from Planned Parenthood. She laughs about how shippers of the aborted babies would give a warning to lab workers to expect such a baby.

“Oh yeah, if you have intact cases — which we’ve done a lot — we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” she says.

“Tell the lab its coming,” she laughs about the intact unborn babies. “You know, open the box and go ‘Oh my God,’” Dyer adds.

The eighth video in the ongoing controversy over Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts shows the CEO of StemExpress, a major buyer of fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood, admitting the company gets “a lot” of intact fetuses, suggesting “another 50 livers a week” would not be enough, and agreeing abortion clinics should profit from the sale.

In the video, actors posing as another human biologics company meet with StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer, plus Vice President of Corporate Development and Legal Affairs Kevin Cooksy, and Procurement Manager Megan Barr. StemExpress and the actors are discussing a potential partnership to supply extra fetal body parts to each other.

“So many physicians are like, ‘Oh I can totally procure tissue,’ and they can’t,” expresses Dyer, seeming to indicate that abortion doctors must do the procedure in a special way to obtain useable fetal parts. Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

“What about intact specimens?” asks one of the actors. “Oh yeah, I mean if you have intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” replies Dyer. “Case” is the clinical term for an abortion procedure. An “intact case” refers to an intact abortion with a whole fetus. “The entire case?” asks an actor. “Yeah, yeah,” says Dyer. “The procurement for us, I mean it can go really sideways, depending on the facility, and then our samples are destroyed,” she explains past botched fetal dissections, “so we started bringing them back even to manage it from a procurement expert standpoint.”What did you say 05.jpg

Feticidal chemicals like digoxin cannot be used to kill the fetus in a tissue procurement case, so a fetus delivered intact for organ harvesting is likely to be a born-alive infant.

“What would make your lab happy?” asks one of the actors. “Another 50 livers a week,” says Dyer. “We’re working with almost like triple digit number clinics,” Dyer explains, “and we still need more.” She later notes, “Planned Parenthood has volume, because they are a volume institution.”

Dyer also agrees that payments to abortion clinics for fetal body parts should be financially beneficial to them.

“Do you feel like there are clinics out there that have been burned, that feel like they’re doing all this work for research and it hasn’t been profitable for them?” she asks. “I haven’t seen that.” StemExpress publishes a flyer for Planned Parenthood clinics that promises “Financial Profits” and “fiscal rewards” for clinics that supply aborted fetal tissue. It is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Chief Medical Officer Dr. Dorothy Furgerson.Hate Merchants

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). The Sacramento Business Journal reported in June that StemExpress has an annual revenue of $4.5 million.

David Daleiden, the head of CMP, commented on the newest video in a statement to LifeNews.

“StemExpress is the ‘weakest link’ that unravels Planned Parenthood’s baby parts chain–they readily admit the profit-motive that Planned Parenthood and their proxies have in supplying aborted baby parts,” he said. “Congress and law enforcement should immediately seize all fetal tissue files from StemExpress and all communications and contracts with Planned Parenthood. The evidence that Planned Parenthood profits from the sale of aborted baby parts is now overwhelming, and not one more dime of taxpayer money should go to their corrupt and fraudulent criminal enterprise.”

After the swarm of negative publicity surrounding Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies and their body parts, StemExpress was forced to cut ties with the abortion company.

Meanwhile, two committees in the House of Representatives have already launched investigations of Planned Parenthood. One committee is looking into whether or not the abortion business is breaking federal law by altering abortion procedures to better obtain aborted baby body parts for sale. Another committee, among other things, is investigating the Obama administration and whether there is any connection between it and the abortion giant.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants to know if the Obama administration, via the Department of Health and Human Services, provided any federal grants to Planned Parenthood that ultimately went to pay for the sales of aborted baby body parts and if they were used by Planned Parenthood to “support transactions involving fetal tissue.”

The expose’ videos catching Planned Parenthood officials selling the body parts of aborted babies have shocked the nation. Here is a list of all eight:

  • In the first video: Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood commented on baby-crushing: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”
  • In the second video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Mary Gatter joked, “I want a Lamborghini” as she negotiated the best price for baby parts.
  • In the third video: Holly O’Donnell, a former Stem Express employee who worked inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, detailed first-hand the unspeakable atrocities and how she fainted in horror over handling baby legs.
  • In the fourth video: Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Savita Ginde stated, “We don’t want to do just a flat-fee (per baby) of like, $200. A per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” She also laughed while looking at a plate of fetal kidneys that were “good to go.”
  • In the fifth video: Melissa Farrell of Planned Parenthood-Gulf Coast in Houston boasted of Planned Parenthood’s skill in obtaining “intact fetal cadavers” and how her “research” department “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States.”
  • In the sixth video: Holly O’Donnell described technicians taking fetal parts without patient consent: “There were times when they would just take what they wanted. And these mothers don’t know. And there’s no way they would know.”
  • In the seventh and perhaps most disturbing video: Holly O’Donnell described the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘You want to see something kind of cool,’” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must Investigate Planned Parenthood for Selling Aborted Baby Parts

So far, 12 states have responded to the Planned Parenthood videos and launched investigations into their abortion and organ harvesting business including South Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Massachusetts, KansasMissouri, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Texas and Louisiana. The district attorney in Houston Texas is also investigating after the Houston-based Planned Parenthood abortion facility was caught selling aborted babies.

Congress has expanded its investigation into the Planned Parenthood abortion business and five states have revoked taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business, including Utah, Arkansas, Alabama, New Hampshire and Louisiana and Iowa’s governor has ordered a review of Planned Parenthood funding.

The full, unedited videos have confirmed that revelations that some aborted baby remains sold by Planned Parenthood go to biotech companies for the purpose of creating “humanized” mice. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has been exposed as having sold body parts from aborted babies for as much as 15 years.

The federal law that technically prohibits the sale of aborted babies and their body parts was written by a pro-abortion Congressman decades ago and essentially spells out a process by which sellers of aborted baby body parts can meet certain criteria that allows the sales to be legal. That’s why a Colorado congressman has introduced legislation to totally ban the sales of aborted baby body parts.

Which kills more blacks comparison In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Ashton Carter orders gun policy reviews at military bases after Tennessee shootings


– The Washington Times – Thursday, July 30, 2015

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said it is time for military branches to develop plans for the option of arming personnel at U.S. sites. Military personnel are generally not allowed to carry guns on base, a responsibility left to security and to military police. (Associated Press)
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said it is time for military branches to develop plans for the option of arming personnel at U.S. sites. Military personnel are generally not allowed to carry guns on base, a responsibility left to security……

In his first policy response to the killings of five American troops at a Tennessee reserve center, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter released a memo Thursday that will let more service members carry guns stateside while on base or at more vulnerable satellite offices.

A two-page memo tells service secretaries to review rules and revise as needed to meet security threats. It could mean that more armed security personnel are added to a base or center and that, in some cases, regular personnel are told to carry guns because of a heightened threat environment.

The Islamic State group, based in Syria and Iraq, has put great effort into trying to persuade Muslims via social media to kill U.S. military personnel.

“The tragic shooting on July 16 in Chattanooga, Tennessee, illustrates the continuing threat to DoD personnel in the U.S. homeland posed by Homegrown Violent Extremists,” Mr. Carter wrote. “This incident and the ongoing threat underscore the need for DoD to review its force protection and security policies, and procedures, particularly for off-installation DoD facilities.”

Makes sitting ducksMr. Carter reminded military leaders that current regulations allow authorized personnel to be armed at recruiting offices, such as the one attacked by Kuwait-born Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.

Pursued by police, Abdulazeez promptly made his way to a Navy-Marine Corps reserve center, where he gunned down four Marines and one sailor. Police shot and killed Abdulazeez.

The defense secretary said now is the time for the four branches to develop plans for the option of arming personnel, particularly 7,000 recruiting and ROTC stations that have no security and rely on local police.

Mr. Carter said he wants security improved at those sites. “Looking at arming personnel doesn’t mean that’s what the services will ultimately decide,” said Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, as quoted by The Associated Press. “But it does tell them that they have, within DOD policy anyway, the existing authority to do that.”

Military personnel are generally not allowed to carry guns on base. That duty is left to security personnel and military police.

“I’m sure that the service chiefs, as they look at this, will be well aware of the constraints that they face in doing this, and that will be part of their plans,” Capt. Davis said.Heart

Rep. Scott E. Rigell, the Virginia Republican who represents the military-rich Tidewater region, sent a letter to Mr. Carter urging him to change policy. “I appreciate and support Secretary Carter’s decision to allow specified service members to carry firearms on military installations as a means of enhanced force protection,” Mr. Rigell said Thursday. “Our nation’s military Secretaries now have until August 21, 2015, to submit their specific policy recommendations to Secretary Carter. The solutions they advance should be comprehensive and equivalent to the known threat posed to our service members. Secretary Carter should move these policy changes forward deliberately and without unnecessary delay. Our service members have the right to defend themselves.”

Mr. Carter’s signed memo said, “I know commanders and other leaders will remain committed to the protection of our dedicated men and women of the all-volunteer force who sacrifice on a daily basis to keep our Nation free.”

freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: