Monday, September 14, 2015

What If We Eliminated Government Handouts Became Like This Man?

What if we eliminated government handouts became like this man?



If we became like Narayanan Krishnan charity would once again become about giving, about helping, about loving our neighbor instead of about taking what can we get. People would help each other get back on their feet. People would be grateful for what they have and work hard to support themselves.  People would be proud of what they accomplished, not what they can 'get.'  People would begin to join together, inclusiveness not divisiveness.

Is this not what the bible teaches charity is?  Charity is to help each other, not to give money to someone else and let them do it for you. Charity is something you must do for yourself.

Why is it better to give/do charity yourself?

When you give/do charity yourself, as Narayanan Krishnan' does, you would see where your charity, where your money, is going.  There would be a human connection. With government handouts, there is not human connection, there is no human interaction between you, the giver (tax payer), and the receiver.  You, the giver, has no way to know where your hard earned money goes and who receives it.  How do you know your money is going to someone who really needs it, to someone that honestly need your help and is someone who you believe deserves to be helped?

People who perform charity would give not only money, but time.  They would help those who truly need it, they would be motivated to not only give immediate assistance, but to help people get on their feet, to succeed, to become independent.  They would also be motivated to help their own, who cannot care for themselves, instead of relying on someone else or the state to do it.  There would be less burden on others. The givers would also be motivated to work together with other givers to help groups of people.

Those who are sincerely needy will be cared for and those who can care for themselves will become not only independent, but givers.

If we became a nation of individual givers of charity, doers of charitable deed, not a nation of 'charity' via government interference, we would become a nation of givers, not grabbers and our government might be able to balance the budget.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Your Tax Dollars Fund Organization That Knowingly Breaks Federal Law

The fifth undercover video by The Center for Medical Progress on Planned Parenthood’s deceptive practice of selling baby parts was released today.  


This video shows the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, advertising the Texas Planned Parenthood branch’s track record of fetal tissue sales, including its ability to deliver fully intact fetuses.

First, think about what it takes to retrieve an 'intact fetus.' 
The following show standard abortion procedures, only the induction abortion would result in an 'intact fetus.'


The procedures involved in ensuring an 'intact fetus' are much more complicated and there is a chance the baby will be born alive.  The risk to the baby in any abortion is dire, the intent is that the baby dies, so it’s rare that a baby survives the procedure, but it is possible.  

To retrieve an 'intact fetus,' the baby must be killed in utero and then labor induced and the baby delivered.  There have been cases where the baby is born alive and, considering that over a thousand babies are born alive, that we know of, and the number of abortions Planned Parenthood does it is consistent that there would be some, if not many, born alive at Planned Parenthood.  As of this moment I don’t know for sure what happens in these cases at Planned Parenthood, it's likely future videos will address this.  If the baby is born alive it is no longer considered an abortion but a birth and killing the baby at this point would be considered a homicide.


Now back to the undercover video.  In the video, Melissa Farrell confirms that Planned Parenthood has broken several federal laws. The two most blatantly violated federal laws are that of illegal profiting from selling baby parts and illegally manipulating abortion procedures.

In the video Farrel says: 

We bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this, so we deviate from our standard in order to do that.”

 “Some of our doctors in the past have projects and they’re collecting the specimens, so they do it in a way that they get the best specimens, so I know it can happen.”
She admits they deviate from the standard to collect baby parts. Federal law, 42 U.S.C. 289g-1(2)(A)(ii): no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue; 

The investigators ask Farrell how she will frame a contract in which they pay a higher price for higher quality fetal body parts, and she replies, 
“We can work it out in the context of--obviously, the procedure itself is more complicated,” suggesting that “without having you cover the procedural cost” and paying for the abortion, the higher specimen price could be framed as “additional time, cost, administrative burden.”
Farrell finally summarizes her affiliate’s approach to fetal tissue payments: 
“If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.”
They take the intact baby and divide it up to make the most profit. “It’s all just a matter of line items.”  The baby and his/her parts have now become “line items.”

“I think everyone realizes, especially because my 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. Larger than any the other affiliates’ combined.”
Take that in for a minute.  Her department, the research department, the department that procures and sells baby parts “contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization.”  This means they are making a profit on the selling of baby parts:


In a Texas Senate hearing on July 29, former Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast clinic director Abby Johnson estimated that the affiliate had previously made up to $120,000 per month off of aborted fetal tissue.

Not only should Planned Parenthood be defunded, they should be investigated and prosecuted.

The defense for continued funding of Planned Parenthood is that it the tax money goes to other programs that Planned Parenthood provides and not to abortion First off, it’s common sense that funding one portion of a company helps the company as a whole and therefore helps the individual parts.  If Planned Parenthood has a budget of $100 and abortions cost them $50 and other services cost $50, making their total costs $50 and the government gives them the $50 for other services, the total they need to raise is reduced by 50%. (I’m not saying the government reduces their costs by 50%, this is just an example). The abortion department is helped by the government funding because they can reduce costs across the board.

The second ‘reason’ for continued funding of Planned Parenthood, that if Planned Parenthood closes many women will go without care, is pure fear mongering, playing on people’s emotions to continue funding this leading abortion provider.  Let’s look at this rationally, not emotionally.

If Planned Parenthood were to close, and nobody believes that they would close just because they lose federal funding, what would happen?  People would find themselves without a provider.  When ObamaCare was enacted thousands lost their providers.  These same politicians who are so ‘distraught’ that women might lose their Planned Parenthood providers are the same ones who barely bat an eye when the thousands lost their providers assuming they will get new providers.  The same is true for customers of Planned Parenthood, they will get new providers, or, in some cases, they will be able to keep their same providers.  If Planned Parenthood shut their doors all their providers would set up shop somewhere else.  These providers aren’t going to all retire just because their place of business closes, they will be working in a new location.  If Planned Parenthood closes, other providers of women’s health care will prosper.  These other providers will be the recipients of the federal funding for women’s health care. 

“But Planned Parenthood provided for those without insurance.”  ObamaCare has taken care of that, hasn’t it? ObamaCare mandates that everyone has insurance and that insurance covers preventative health care to women “without charging you a copayment or coinsurance.”  Unless these politicians who so fervently supported ObamaCare, mostly the same ones who are supporting Planned Parenthood, believe it is not doing what it is mandated to do. 

The sob stories, the stories of women who received care at Planned Parenthood, who had nowhere else to turn are a false narrative.  Trying to show what will happen if Planned Parenthood closes by using an example of what happened in one place in 2011 to ‘prove’ their point.  Their ‘facts’ are outdated and irrelevant.  Yes, 2011 wasn’t that long ago, but it was before ObamaCare was enacted.  The problems incurred in the 2011 have been eliminated by ObamaCare. Also, I’m sure all the patients have since found new providers.  The stories are told to specifically to elicit emotions in people to convince people to see things their way.  They have no other recourse than to play on people’s emotions because their ‘reasoning’ doesn’t hold water. 


There is no logical reason for Planned Parenthood to receive federal funding.  It is a criminal organization that is breaking federal law.  Are you going to allow your tax dollars to continue to be used to fund an organization that sells baby parts and knowingly violates federal law?  Morality dictates you do not. 

All the videos released so far, the edited versions and the full, unedited versions, are found on The Center For Medical Progress' Website. 

Thursday, July 2, 2015

What Would You Do? What SHOULD You Do?


You work for a large company. The company has had in place, for many years, a policy they use to make major changes that affect all employees, which enables the employees to have a say in how the company is run.  Each department choses a representative for their department.  

When a new policy is proposed each department votes on the proposal and the representatives meet to discuss the proposal, what each department voted, either for or against the new policy. Depending on the policy, it can be applied company-wide or in the individual departments that approve it.  

A new policy had been submitted.  In this company it has been the policy for Saturday work days. It appears that the majority of the people would like to have Saturday off, but there are some who like the extra pay working Saturday gives them.  Each Department will determine for themselves if the employees will work Saturdays or have Saturdays off.  This will be determined by what the workers want and if they can accomplish the work that needs to be done with one less work day. 

The departments have been discussing and voting.  Suddenly the Board of Directors, because they are tired of listening to their friends and family complain, think the process is taking too long and declare that everyone will have Saturday off.  The board’s job is not to make policy, but to ensure polices are being followed and that the company remains on track.  According to company regulations, the management can make policies, but only with input from the departments. 

The management allows the board to enact this new policy because they, themselves like the policy, it would give them Saturdays off.  

Assuming you want Saturdays off, what would you do? Do you keep quiet because you like the new policy and believe that the majority of the people like the policy so it’s ok? Do you insist creation of a new policy follow procedure, even though it may take longer but is the proper way to handle the policy, after all, the policy may not benefit everyone and everyone has the right to input and the board has no right making policy, only ensuring policy doesn’t violate company rules also knowing that this opens the door for the board to arbitrarily make other policies that you and the other employees do not like and would have no say about?

What do you do?

Make your decision then scroll down

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You live in America. America has had in place, for many years, a Constitution they use to make major changes that affect all citizens, which enables the citizens to have a say in how the company is run.  Each state elects representatives for their state.  When a new law is proposed each state votes on the law and the representatives meet to vote, what each citizen of his/her state voted, either for or against the new law. Depending on the law, it can be applied nation-wide or it could be a law which does not fall within the realm of a federal law, but a law that would be required to be an individual state law. 
The federal government is limited by the Constitution as to what laws they can and cannot make.

According to the Constitution, the federal government is responsible for laws enumerated in the Constitution under Article 1and nothing more, everything else falls to the state 
Note:  The 10th Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 

The Supreme Court does not make laws, they determine if laws are Constitutional, their job is described, in detail, in Article 3 of the Constitution.

So a new law has been submitted to the state.  In this case the law is that same sex marriage is legal.  Under the Constitution, each state should determine for themselves if the same sex marriage will be legal.  This will be determined by what the citizens of the state want by majority.  The states have been discussing and voting.  Suddenly the Supreme Court, because they are tired of listening to their friends and family complain, think the process is taking too long declare that same sex marriage is legal in all states.  The Supreme Court’s job is not to make law, but to ensure laws are being followed under the Constitution. Under the Constitution, same sex marriage would not fall under federal law but state law. It is unconstitutional to create a federal same sex marriage law.  

Should the Supreme Court determine that same sex marriage can be applied to taxation, the law would still not fall under Supreme Court but with the Legislative Branch.  The Senators and Representatives, having been elected by their constituents, should vote based on the wishes of his/her constituents.  

In this case the management, in other words the President/Vice President/many of the Legislative branch have allowed SCOTUS to enact this new ‘law’ because they, themselves like the ‘law.’  It bypasses the headache of having this put on a ballot and voted on in their state.  

Assuming you are for same sex marriage, what would you do? Do you keep quiet because you want same sex marriage and believe that the majority of the people also want same sex marriage and because you think it’s fair and right, so it’s ok that SCOTUS over stepped its bounds? Do you insist creation of same sex laws follow procedure, follow the Constitution even though it may take longer but is the Constitutional and legal way to handle the policy, after all, not everyone is pro-same sex marriage and everyone has the right to input, even if they disagree with me and SCOTUS has no right making law, only ensuring law doesn’t violate the Constitution, also knowing that this opens the door for SCOTUS to arbitrarily make other laws that you and the other citizens do not like and would have no say about?

What SHOULD you do?