Friday, May 24, 2013

Obama can relax, he won’t be impeached

The “perfect storm” of political scandals that has embroiled the Obama Administration over the past few weeks has some conservatives and Republicans speculating that President Obama might be impeached or be forced to resign in disgrace. While there are plenty of serious accusations of misconduct in the White House and federal government, the scandals are all still in their infancy and President Obama’s precise role is not known. It is all but certain, however, that the president will not be impeached.

The first scandal, the cover-up after the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, is the most advanced. The White House released emails earlier this month that showed that references to al Qaeda had been scrubbed from the administration’s talking points about the attack according to ABC News. ABC reported as early as Oct. 9, 2012 that the street protests were non-existent. More than two weeks after the attack, President Obama was still blaming a “crude and disgusting video” that allegedly “sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world” in a speech to the United Nations. President Obama’s only mention of al Qaeda in the speech was to call it “weakened” in reference to Osama bin Laden’s death. There is still no satisfactory explanation as to why there was no rescue attempt.

The second scandal involves abuse of power by Internal Revenue Service. The IRS admitted on May 10 that it had targeted conservative groups for additional scrutiny during the run-up to the 2012 election. It quickly became apparent that the problem was much more widespread than the IRS had admitted. In fact, the IRS approved no conservative groups at all for a 27 month period beginning in February 2010 according to USA Today. There were other abuses as well, including audits of Obama’s political critics and attempts to force a pro-life group to stop protesting Planned Parenthood according to Examiner. The IRS had even planted the press conference question that Lerner answered to ignite the scandal in an apparent attempt to preempt a government report on the matter.

President Obama and his aides claimed to learn of the scandal “when it came out in the news” according to Yahoo News, however multiple reports show that the White House counsel learned about the internal investigation of the matter several weeks earlier. Lois Lerner, the IRS official who broke the story, learned about the matter as early as 2011 according to the Washington Post. Several senators were also aware of the investigation, but had been unable to get answers from the IRS before Ms. Lerner’s apology.

The third scandal, the Obama Administration’s broad seizure of Associated Press phone records, may prove to be the most dangerous to Obama. In the course of investigating a leak, the Department of Justice, in another scandal that was wider than initially admitted, secretly subpoenaed phone records for five AP offices and hundreds of reporters over a two month period according to the Washington Post. Typically, government investigators ask news organizations for records or at least provide advance notice of such a subpoena. In this case, the DOJ did neither.

The government cites national security concerns for the phone records, but the case in question, the report of an al Qaeda bomb plot disrupted by federal agents, was actually the subject of a White House news conference on the same day that the AP published its story according to NBC News. Further, the press conference by counterterrorism advisor John Brennan contained an important detail that the AP story lacked: the fact that an inside informant had helped to disrupt the plot. Obama claimed not to know the details of the AP case as late as May 16, three days after the story broke according to Mediaite. Attorney General Eric Holder claimed to have recused himself from the investigation according to USA Today.

The Associated Press scandal may prove most dangerous for Obama because the media has traditionally been sympathetic to Democrats. By launching heavy-handed investigations of media outlets, the Administration risks transforming the cozy relationship to an adversarial one. The problem is compounded by the recent revelation that the FBI secretly monitored a Fox News journalist as a “criminal co-conspirator” in a 2009 leak case. Ironically, the failure of the media to look deeply into other Obama Administration scandals such as Fast and Furious and Solyndra may have encouraged members of the administration to pursue ever more risky political strategies on the assumption that they would not be subjected to rigorous fact-checking by the media.

Regardless of the severity of these scandals, there is almost no chance that any combination of them will result in the president’s impeachment. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the power to impeach the president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors” which are not defined. Since the House is controlled by Republicans, a vote to impeach should pass handily, so why impeachment so unlikely?

The second step is that the impeached president must then be tried in the Senate in order to be removed from office. The Democrats currently control the Senate 55-45 (including two independents who would probably vote with the Democrats). The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to remove the president. This means that even if all Republicans in the Senate voted to remove Obama from office, they would still need the votes of 21 Democrats or independents. It would be pointless and possibly counterproductive for Republicans to impeach Obama when they are not able to remove him from office.

In all of U.S. history, only two presidents have been impeached. Neither was removed from office. In 1868, Andrew Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by a single vote after seven senators broke party ranks to support the president. In 1998, Bill Clinton was also acquitted with 45 guilty votes on a perjury charge and 50 votes on an obstruction of justice charge, 21 and 16 votes short of removal respectively. Several Republicans voted for acquittal while no Democrats voted guilty.

The chance that Obama might be forced to resign is slightly better, but still a long shot. Richard Nixon was the only president to resign from office. In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned in 1974 to avoid impeachment. President Obama is unlikely to take similar action since the threat of impeachment is so remote. President Obama would probably not consider resignation unless he lost the support of his Democratic base.

Liberals can breathe a sigh of relief that President Obama’s job is probably safe. On the other hand, conservatives can take encouragement from the possibility that Obama may be so damaged by the scandals that he is unable to advance his second term agenda. Likewise, the Democratic Party’s troubles means that Republicans might have better odds in the 2014 midterm elections. Republicans can take comfort from the fact that if Obama were removed from office, Joe Biden would be next in line.

Originally published on

Monday, May 20, 2013

How to prepare for an airline interview

Many aviation industry observers predict that U.S. airlines are on the cusp of a shortage of qualified pilots. The shortage is the result of a large number of looming retirements at U.S. airlines and a new FAA rule scheduled to go into effect this August that will increase the flight experience requirement for airline pilots. The pilot shortage may present a unique opportunity for prospective pilots who have the required qualifications to be considered by the airlines, but first would-be airline pilots must pass the airline’s interview process.

An airline interview is unlike an interview at a non-aviation company. An airline interview is usually a single event, unlike interviews at non-aviation companies which can involve two, three or more interviews before an offer is made. In some cases, the airline interview may take place over several days and involve multiple meetings.

The first step in preparing for an airline interview is to research the company. The prospective applicant should be aware of recent news stories about the company, have an understanding of the company’s history, and be familiar with the company’s leaders. Much of this information can be found on the company’s website, on aviation trade sites such as Aviation Week, or news sources like the Wall St. Journal. Often, company websites allow users to sign up to receive press releases via email. A directory of sites relating to aviation employment can be found on Learn about the company’s culture as well. An interview with Southwest, Virgin America or JetBlue will require a different approach than an interview with Delta, United or US Airways.

The next step in preparation is to find out what the company’s interview process is like. Several websites offer “gouge,” or details of their experience, from previous interview candidates. One of the most popular such sites is, but other sites such as Will Fly for Food offer interview gouge as well. Job seekers can also use forums on websites such as to ask questions of current employees or others who have interviewed with the company. is a good source of information on many aviation companies and also has forums.

There are two types of questions on an aviation interview. First, there are normal human resource questions. These questions are of the “getting to know you” type. Examples would be “tell me about yourself” and “what are your strengths and weaknesses?” The second type of question to be expected is the technical question. Technical questions include subjects such as systems on the aircraft that you currently fly, the Federal Aviation Regulations, and how to brief an instrument approach.

Some companies concentrate on human resource questions while others tend toward technical questions. In most cases, companies ask both varieties of questions. In some cases, there are even separate interview sessions for each type of question. A sample list of general interview questions can be found online here, but interview gouge sites often report the questions most recently asked of interviewees.

Many companies also put prospective new hires through a simulator evaluation. Normally the sim ride is a simple evaluation of the pilot’s flying abilities to help the company determine whether the applicant would have problems in training. In many cases, the simulator evaluation covers basic maneuvers like climbs, turns, descents, ILS approaches, and holding patterns. Some companies, especially those that require that applicants already be type rated in the airplane to be flown, may have more in-depth simulator screenings with engine out maneuvers. To find out exactly what your experience will entail, check the gouge.

Some companies also require their applicants to take a written test. These tests often consist of basic aeronautical knowledge with multiple choice questions similar to those that might be found on the instrument and Airline Transport Pilot written exams.

Once you have determined what to expect on your interview, the next step is to start studying. A good method is to make a list of questions found on the interview gouge sites. Go down the list, answer the questions and then study your answers. For longer answers, write your answer in outline form. Don’t try to memorize the answer word for word, just remember the points that you want to make. Practice answering the questions out loud. Start in front of a mirror and then have your family and friends quiz you.

Many applicants also choose to go to a professional interview coach. There are several companies that special in helping applicants prepare for airline interviews. These services put the applicant through a mock interview and then critique their performance. Especially if the interview is with a company where hiring is very competitive, the experience of a mock interview can be valuable. Two companies that provide coaching for aviation interviews are Clark Aviation Consulting and Aviation Interview Prep Services. Other coaching services may be mentioned in interview gouge.

Pilots who are not accustomed to flying a simulator should definitely take a simulator prep course. If possible, the sim prep should take place in the same type of simulator in which the interview will take place. Follow the interview simulator profile as closely as possible, especially if it involves a complex maneuver like the ILS approach into Louisville, Ky. with a quick missed approach turn and holding pattern that was used in the simulator evaluation for a major cargo carrier. Again, check the gouge for referrals from previous applicants.

With preparation and study, you will have an excellent chance of becoming the next airline new hire. If you don’t get a job offer, don’t give up. Some companies, notably Southwest and FedEx, like to hire applicants on the second or third interview. As with anything, practice makes perfect and more interviews will improve your presentation. If all else fails, keep trying with other companies until you get your chance to hop in an airline cockpit.

Originally published on

Sunday, May 19, 2013

IRS manager in problem office got bonuses, now leads Obamacare unit

Sarah Hall Ingram was the IRS official in charge of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Exempt Division from 2009 through 2012. Her division has recently made headlines as part of the IRS that singled conservative groups who were seeking tax exemptions.

One might expect that Sarah Hall Ingram would have been dismissed from the IRS after President Obama announced his displeasure over the IRS scandal. Obama requested the resignation of acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller after the scandal broke.

In reality, the IRS confirmed Friday to ABC News that Ingram, rather than being fired or demoted, now heads up the IRS Affordable Care Office. The Affordable Care Act dramatically expands the size and power of the IRS by putting the IRS in charge of enforcing the individual and employer mandates. The IRS also controls and regulates the Affordable Care Act’s federal subsidies for health insurance.

Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the Republican candidate for vice president in 2012, called the IRS connection to Obamacare “rotten to the core.” Speaking today on Fox News Sunday, he said, “The IRS is now going to be granted huge amounts of unprecedented power over our health care in the implementation of Obamacare. And so this is just rotten to the core. This is arrogance. This is big government cronyism. And this is not what hard-working taxpayers deserve.”

Other conservatives wondered whether the IRS might limit the availability of health care, health insurance or federal subsidies in cases where patients were critical of the Obama Administration or the federal government. In answer, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) has introduced the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013. The law would prohibit the IRS from implementing or enforcing the Affordable Care Act’s provisions.

Acting Commissioner Miller’s firing has also been greatly exaggerated. ABC News also reported that Miller’s 210 day term would have expired on June 8. In the meantime, Miller is still on the job. No final date for his departure has been announced. A copy of his resignation letter to IRS employees in the Washington Post referred to Miller’s focus “on an orderly transition,” which seems to imply that his departure will not be immediate.

The brunt of the blame seems to be falling on Joseph Grant, who became deputy commissioner of the tax exempt division in 2007, serving under Ms. Ingram. Grant was promoted to Ms. Ingram’s old position only two days before the IRS announcement that sparked the scandal. USA Today reports that Grant will retire on June 3.

The Washington Examiner also reported this week that Sarah Hall Ingram received more than $100,000 in bonuses during her tenure as the head of the tax exempt office. During the years from 2010 through 2012 when IRS persecution of conservative groups was at its highest levels, Ingram received between $26,000 and $35,000 in annual bonus money. Ingram also received a bonus of $47,900 in 2004. During the four years in question, the average bonus paid to IRS employees was $5,500.

The Examiner points out that Office of Personnel Management guidelines state, “If the recommended award is over $25,000, the Director of OPM reviews the nomination and forwards his/her recommendation to the President for approval.” The guidelines also note that managers should ensure that “the proposed award recipient has not been involved in any action or activity that could cause the President embarrassment.…”

Originally posted on Examiner:

Saturday, May 18, 2013

IRS scandal is worse than Benghazi for Obama

300px-IRS.svgOver the past week, the Obama Administration has been repeatedly rocked by scandals. Beginning with last week’s hearings on the pre-election attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the death of ambassador Chris Stevens, President Obama has endured a steady stream of bad news.

Although the Benghazi hearing has raised the ire of conservatives, the real danger to the Obama Administration comes from the domestic scandals. In particular Obama’s problems with the Internal Revenue Service can fire the imaginations and anger of the American people.

As reported by Examiner last October, the fundamentals of the Benghazi fiasco were known within weeks after the attack. The recent hearings have confirmed that President Obama lied about the nature of the attack to avoid having his foreign policy questioned just before the election. Benghazi never captured the public’s imagination, however. Even though a U.S. ambassador, a consulate employee, and two former Navy Seals were killed by al Qaeda-linked militants, the media mostly ignored the story of the cover-up. The American public, weary of war after more than a decade of fighting, seemed unwilling to get angry over the attack, even if it was the result of Obama’s foreign policy or Secretary of State Clinton’s refusal to reinforce the consulate’s security forces. This week’s revelations of IRS bullying and Justice Department subpoenas of Associated Press phone records seem likelier to hit home, each for different reasons.

In the best of times, the IRS is probably the most reviled federal agency. Nobody likes taxes. Tax collectors have been unpopular with taxpayers since long before the days when Matthew and Zacchaeus repented of abuse of power in their chosen profession. More recently, the IRS scandal began with an apology from Lois Lerner, director of the Exempt Organizations Division, for what she termed as the targeting of conservative groups for additional scrutiny on their applications for tax exempt status. The problem, she said, lay with low level workers in Cincinnati who acted independently. It quickly became apparent that the IRS confession barely scratched the surface.

· In 2009, the IRS tried to force board members of a pro-life group to sign a statement promising “under perjury of the law, they do not picket/protest or organize groups to picket or protest outside of Planned Parenthood” in order to gain tax exemption according to the Thomas More Law Center.

· In 2010, Z Street, a pro-Israel group, sued the IRS after being told that its application would take longer because it was “connected to Israel” according to the Jewish Press.

· In September 2010, the Weekly Standard reported that Austan Goolsbee, the head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, criticized Koch Industries, citing confidential tax information that was not publicly available.

· Anne Henderschott, a Catholic professor and blogger, was targeted by the IRS for audits after she wrote several articles challenging liberal Catholic groups who supported Obamacare. According to the Blaze, many of the questions in the audit were political.

· In April 2011, Secure America Now, an organization critical of Obama’s foreign policy toward North Korea, Iran, Israel and Libya had its tax exemption held up twice by the IRS according to the WSJ. The investigation intensified after the group produced a popular video about the Benghazi attack.

· In May 2011, Bloomberg reported that the IRS had attempted to retroactively tax gifts made to tax exempt groups “supporting Republican causes.”

· In March 2012, the Puffington Host published private information about donors to the National Organization for Marriage that it admitted had been obtained from the IRS.

· In June 2012, Idaho businessman Frank Vandersloot was subjected to a series of audits after being mentioned in an Obama campaign as one of several “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records” who donated to Romney. VanderSloot passed the audits with flying colors.

· From December 2012 to January 2013, the IRS gave the left-leaning group Pro Publica confidential tax information about conservative groups.

· In April 2013, just a few weeks before the scandal broke, CNET reported that internal IRS communications state that Americans have “generally no privacy” in electronic communications such as email and Facebook chats. The IRS position is that no warrant is required to access email. This in spite of judicial rulings to the contrary.

As new victims of IRS abuse come forward, it is evident that the IRS harassed only conservatives. It is also apparent that the problem went beyond merely denying tax exempt status to conservative groups. The IRS sought membership lists from conservative groups, targeted Obama opponents with audits and slow-tracking of approvals, and leaked confidential tax information to liberal groups. The IRS also apparently tried to influence and limit the political speech of individuals and groups opposed to President Obama.

Contrary to the official IRS explanation, at least two IRS offices were involved. According to the Washington Post, letters to conservative groups seeking information about donors also came from the Washington, D.C. and California offices. At least one group was told that their application was under review in Washington.

While such heavy-handed tactics were once the province of many Democratic presidents from FDR to JFK according to historian James Bovard, Congress has since enacted legislation to restrict political contacts between the IRS and the White House. To put President Obama’s current predicament into perspective, the second article of impeachment against Richard Nixon involved using tax information for illegal purposes and auditing political opponents.

The matter of the Justice Department’s AP investigation is less pressing to most Americans, but has the potential to turn members of the media against the Obama Administration. The New Yorker called the AP investigation “aggressive.” The Wall Street Journal notes that the AP subpoenas were “broad, violating normal Justice practice of narrowly tailoring requests that concern the media.” The Justice Department overreach may entice a press corps that mostly sympathizes with Obama to take a more adversarial tack.

President Obama immediately tried to distance himself from the scandals. On May 13, he called the IRS an “independent agency,” an assessment that disputes. The IRS is actually a branch of the Treasury Department. The president appoints the heads of both the IRS and the Treasury Department, a fact subtly acknowledged by President Obama when he fired Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller on Thursday. Miller would have left the post in June anyway.

President Obama’s problems may not be solved that easily. Abuse of power in federal agencies seems to be increasing under President Obama. According to the Wall St. Journal, the Environmental Protection Agency has favored groups that share its political agenda, charging conservative groups for Freedom of Information Act requests while waiving fees for liberal groups. Earlier this year, a court ruled the president’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board unconstitutional, but the board keeps issuing rulings. In Obama’s first term, several courts decided that the EPA acted outside its legal authority as Examiner reported last year. Obama’s Interior Department was held in contempt in 2010 for refusing to issue new drilling permits after Obama’s unilateral drilling moratorium was ruled unconstitutional.

Whether President Obama personally ordered the IRS to investigate and bully conservative groups or not, there can be little doubt that he set the tone that encouraged the harassment. Kimberly Strassel points out that many of Obama’s speeches that deride conservative groups as “less than reputable” and made thinly veiled calls for their investigation. Senate Democrats went even further notes Karl Rove. On two separate occasions, in 2010 and 2012, Democratic senators sent letters to the IRS demanding investigation of political groups.

Voters are angry about the IRS scandal. A Rasmussen poll released Wednesday indicated that a majority of Americans feel that the IRS agents responsible should be punished. Forty-one percent believe they should be fired while 29 percent support a formal reprimand. Sixteen percent believe that jail time is warranted. Fifty-seven percent believe that the investigations were politically motivated and 55 percent believe that President Obama and his top aides were aware of what the IRS was doing.

While impeachment hearings will not be held any time soon, it is also unlikely that the IRS abuse of power scandal will disappear any time soon. Americans will likely think of their own tax troubles when they hear the tales of politically motivated audits. The problem may be even worse for Obama if voters realize that the IRS will be responsible for much of the implementation of the new health care rules under Obamacare.

Originally published on Examiner:

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Kermit Gosnell and America’s Holocaust

Abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell was recently found guilty of a laundry list of crimes including three counts of first degree murder for the killings of several babies that were born alive at his abortion clinic. Gosnell was accused of cutting the necks of the babies in violation of Pennsylvania law and basic human decency.

Gosnell has received virtually no support or sympathy from the pro-choice crowd. The head of NARAL Pro-Choice America said that Gosnell will “get what he deserves” in a statement. Before his arrest, her view of Gosnell would likely have been different. Many abortion clinics in surrounding states referred late term patients to Gosnell for abortions because it was common knowledge in the abortion industry that he was an abortionist who had little regard for state laws limiting abortion to 24 weeks according to the grand jury report.

It is also interesting to note that the same pro-choice activists who now throw Gosnell under the bus still fight for the right to perform abortions. If the babies that Gosnell murdered had still been in the womb, pro-choice activists would have rallied around him as a martyr. In the past, pro-choice groups have opposed any meaningful restrictions on abortion, even fighting against a ban on brutal partial birth abortions in which a baby is delivered except for the head. The abortionist then punctures the baby’s skull, still inside the woman’s body, and inserts a catheter to suck out the brain. Partial birth abortions were performed on babies much older than the 24 weeks mandated by Pennsylvania. Pro-choice groups have also opposed parental notification laws, clinic inspections (Gosnell’s clinic was appallingly unsanitary), and limits on when abortions can be performed.

Godwin’s Law dictates that the longer an internet discussion goes on, the more likely it is that someone will make an analogy about Nazis. Consequently, comparisons to Nazis or the use of “Nazi” or “fascist” as an epithet are so overdone that they have lost much of their effectiveness. Nevertheless, from time to time, a situation arises where a valid comparison to Nazis can be made. The case of Kermit Gosnell is one of these situations.

Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society was every bit as much a murder factory as the German concentration camps. The babies, the majority of the victims of Gosnell’s crimes, were dehumanized in the eyes of their murderers, just as the Jews and other victims of the camps were dehumanized in the eyes of their Nazi captors.

This dehumanization began with what is standard practice for pro-choice activists: the refusal to call an unborn baby a “baby.” When a baby becomes a “fetus” it is easier to think of it in less than human terms, an “inanimate lump of cells” in the words and minds of some pro-abortion advocates. This is directly analogous to the way in which Nazis dehumanized Jews, Slavs and others as “untermenschen,” sub-humans.

When someone is viewed as sub-human, they are easier to kill. At some point during the nearly 40 years of his practice, Gosnell and his staff members graduated from killing unborn “fetuses” to killing living, breathing babies who had “precipitated,” the office euphemism for birth.

Like the Nazi executioners, the staff of the Women’s Medical Society became so desensitized that they even joked about the babies they were killing or played with them before they cut their spinal cords according to grand jury testimony. Gosnell was said to commonly joke after killing big, late term babies that they could have “walked me to the bus stop.”

Testimony of the Holocaust includes tales of kindness from Germans at one moment followed by cold-blooded, businesslike killing the next. The book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” details the account of German soldiers who found a group of hidden Jewish orphans. Feeling pity for the untermenschen children, they put them at the head of the line for extermination so that they would not suffer.

Undercover videos by the pro-life documentary group Live Action reveal that the practice of dehumanizing unborn babies is common. In most cases, the abortionists never utter the words “baby,” “kill,” or “die.” Instead, a “pregnancy” is “terminated” or “fetal demise” is ensured. In violation of state and federal law, as well as human decency, the undercover activists are repeatedly assured that if the baby survives the abortion, the clinic workers will not help it live.

For other abortion clinics, the dehumanization also extends beyond killing the baby in the womb. One abortionist in the Bronx, where a baby is as likely to be aborted as born, tells the undercover filmmaker to “flush it” if she delivers her baby away from the clinic. LeRoy Carhart, known for performing late term abortions, is unusually direct and blunt, telling patients that they will have a dead baby inside them for three days that will be softening up like “meat in a crock pot.” More typical is the Bronx abortionist who says, “We don’t use the word ‘kill.’” Likewise, the Nazis also used a number of euphemisms for their killing, including several that are the same or very similar to terms used by abortionists.

Like the Nazi camps, abortion clinics, Gosnell’s in particular, are assembly lines of death. The grand jury report notes that Gosnell’s clinic was subject to a constant stream of patients, some coming for abortions, others for illegal drugs. Gosnell’s untrained and uncertified staff would promptly sedate the women coming for abortions because Gosnell didn’t like it when women screamed or moaned in pain. The women were also given drugs to induce labor, often in Gosnell’s absence. Because Gosnell often came in late, babies were often born alive; one or two each night according to the testimony, often entering the world into the toilet in Gosnell’s clinic. Gosnell allegedly preferred it when babies were born alive because it made his job easier. An abortion procedure could take up to half an hour. It was much quicker to kill a living baby and just suck out the placenta.

Also like the Nazis, Gosnell and other abortionists profit handsomely from their killings. According to the grand jury report, Gosnell’s take from his clinic was estimated at $1.8 million per year, most of it in cash. Police found $240,000 and a gun hidden in his 12-year-old daughter’s closet when they raided his house.

Abortion is profitable for other clinics as well. The American Center for Law and Justice points out that 51 percent of Planned Parenthood’s income comes from abortions. Planned Parenthood, a for-profit business that also receives taxpayer funds, receives more than $164 million per year from abortions. The sale of body parts from aborted babies for medical and pharmaceutical research is rumored to be a multimillion dollar underground industry (Nazis experimented on their victims as well). In spite of the lucrative nature of the abortion business, as noted earlier on Examiner, abortion clinics are often unsanitary and ill equipped. Infections, complications and even deaths of women resulting from the substandard conditions in abortion clinics are not uncommon.

Nazi death camps and abortion clinics also share common roots in the racist scientific theories of the early 20th century. Hitler’s ideas were rooted in eugenics, a pseudoscience popularized in California, which held that humanity could be improved by controlling the genetic makeup of society. According to PBS, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was also a proponent of eugenics.

Hitler took eugenics one step further by totally eliminating - killing - those he deemed unfit. From the 1920s until after World War II, the mentally handicapped were sometimes the subject of forced sterilizations due to American eugenics laws. In 1918, a U.S. Army doctor, Paul Popenoe, had suggested executing “defective” people to “keep up the standard of the race” according to George Mason University. Hitler seized these ideas, which had been funded by Americans like Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller, and began sterilizing German undesirables almost as soon as the Nazis came to power. In 1940, two years before the Final Solution for the Jews was formalized, the Germans began euthanizing – killing – the mentally retarded, the physically handicapped, and the mentally ill. Even today, the possibility of birth defects remains a main rationalization for abortion, a legacy of eugenics.

The Holocaust stands as one of the great tragedies of human history. Not only Jews, but other untermenschen and undesirables such as Slavs, gypsies, political prisoners and others were killed by the Nazis. The BBC estimates that the total number of civilians murdered by the Nazis was about 15 million over the 12 years of the “thousand year Reich’s” existence. Politifact estimates that there have been 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

Perhaps the most positive thing that can be said about the Gosnell trial is that most Americans are shocked by the revelations about the U.S. abortion industry. When people are shocked by Gosnell’s behavior, they are not yet desensitized to the slaughter of innocents among us. When abortionists must cover their deeds with euphemisms, lies and a media blackout there is hope that the American public will become aware and angry enough to act.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, said it best in a statement on the group’s website: “The few inches that separate a child in the womb from a child outside the womb should never determine whether its intentional ‘demise’ is permitted by law or whether a ‘right’ to kill it no longer exists.”

Originally published on Examiner:

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Abortion doctor guilty of killing babies

Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia abortionist who ran a little shop of horrors that churned out a steady stream of scarred and battered women along with untold numbers of dead babies, has been found guilty. Gosnell may be the first abortionist ever convicted of killing babies.

Gosnell was convicted on three counts of first degree murder for the killings of three babies born alive at his abortion clinic. After the babies were born, Gosnell cut their necks with scissors, a practice that was allegedly common in the clinic. Gosnell was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the drug overdose death of Karnamaya Mongar, an adult patient at the clinic. The jury found Gosnell not guilty in the case of a fourth baby’s murder.

Gosnell was also found guilty of a host of lesser charges. According to NBC Philadelphia, the guilty verdicts included an additional count of infanticide, two counts of conspiracy, 21 of 24 counts of abortion of an unborn child of 24 weeks or more and 208 of 227 counts of violating Pennsylvania’s informed consent of abortion law.

Prosecutors have indicated that they will seek the death penalty for Gosnell, who is 72 years old.

Yahoo News quotes a statement by Ilyse Hogue, chairman of NARAL Pro-Choice America as saying, “Now, let's make sure these women are vindicated by delivering what all women deserve: Access to the full range of health services including safe, high-quality and legal abortion care.” Hogue added that the verdict means that Gosnell will “get what he deserves.”

The revelations from the case about the late term abortion industry have sparked a growing debate that is causing some abortion supporters to reconsider their views. Examiner reported that a prominent blogger and a reporter covering the trial were among the people swayed by testimony about the killings that went on in Gosnell’s clinic.

Originally published on Examiner.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Abortion doctor trial is changing minds… in spite of press blackout

The trial of Kermit Gosnell has put abortion on display in America. This is in spite of mainstream media attempts to ignore the grisly story of Gosnell’s little shop of horrors in Philadelphia. Previously Examiner reported how Gosnell and his employees were responsible for the death of at least one woman at his clinic and caused serious damage to the health of others. While many of Gosnell’s victims were the women who came to him, they were only the tip of the iceberg.

The other victims of Gosnell and his employees were too numerous to count. Gosnell had worked as an abortionist since 1972. The grand jury report on Gosnell makes a conservative estimate that Gosnell did 25 abortions each night for three nights per week. That works out to an estimated 3,900 abortions per year or 148,200 abortions in the 38 years he practiced until his arrest in 2010. The take for Gosnell’s work was an estimated $1.8 million per year… most of it in cash. A search of Gosnell’s house turned up $240,000 in cash hidden in his daughter’s closet along with a gun.

Gosnell will never be punished for killing the majority of the 148,200 babies who died at his hands. Many were under the legal limit of 24 weeks in which abortions are permitted in Pennsylvania. For others, many of whom were older than 24 weeks, Gosnell apparently destroyed the records, although he recorded the age of hundreds of babies as “24.5 weeks,” just over Pennsylvania’s legal limit.

Seven babies bear mute testimony to the horrors of Gosnell’s “Women’s Medical Society.” Some of these babies were photographed by staff members after they were killed. Others were discovered in the office when police launched a drug raid in 2010. Police found fetal remains “in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers. Some fetal remains were in a refrigerator, others were frozen” according to the grand jury. Forty-five sets of fetal remains were discovered in the clinic. Gosnell admitted to detectives that “at least 10- to 20 percent” were older than 24 weeks. The medical examiner determined that two or three of the babies were viable. The seven babies that Gosnell is accused of murdering are referred to by the letters A through G since they never acquired names.

Baby Boy A was 18 to 19 inches long and weighed about six pounds when he was born alive in Gosnell’s clinic. In spite of the fact that the baby boy was breathing, Gosnell slit his neck and put the body in a shoebox. The baby continued to move. A neonatologist testified to the grand jury that this means that the baby was still alive and in “a tremendous amount of pain.” Several staff members took photographs of the baby because of its unusual size. The details in the photograph showed hair, a developed scrotum and other features that indicated a development of 32 weeks.

Baby C was delivered by one of Gosnell’s employees, Lynda Williams. After delivering the baby, Williams placed it on a counter while she tended to the mother. Baby C was moving and breathing for about 20 minutes. Williams played with Baby C according to testimony and then slit its neck. Williams is among several clinic workers to plead guilty to murder.

According to testimony, it was not uncommon for Gosnell to perform late term abortions on babies that were viable outside the womb. In many cases, babies were born alive, often because Gosnell would arrive late, and then be killed by Gosnell or his staff. Many of these babies could move or cry on their own. When babies were born at the clinic, Gosnell or other staff members would cut the baby’s spinal cord or slit its throat. Gosnell is reported to have preferred it when the babies were already born because it made his job easier. He often made jokes about the size of the babies that he had killed.

Gosnell flagrantly disregarded the law. In Pennsylvania, abortions must be performed prior to 24 weeks, but the grand jury report notes that Gosnell had a reputation as a doctor who would perform abortions “at any stage without regard for legal limits.” Gosnell also disregarded Pennsylvania’s 24 hour waiting period law, often performing abortions on the same day as the initial consultation “as long as the patient paid in full, typically in cash.”

The revelations of Gosnell’s killings have already changed the abortion debate. Roger Simon wrote in Pajamas Media how he and his wife were affected by the Philadelphia atrocities:

“Both lifelong ‘pro-choice’ people, after watching only seconds, we embarked in an immediate discussion of whether it was time to reconsider that view.  (Didn’t human life really begin at the moment of conception?  What other time?) Neither of us was comfortable as a ‘pro-choice’ advocate in the face of these horrifying revelations.  How could we be?”

It is an uncomfortable truth for pro-choice advocates that the legal line between a “fetus” and a baby is arbitrary and perilously thin. What Gosnell and his staff did is the logical extension of legal abortion where babies are dehumanized as inanimate growths in a woman’s body.

A number of prominent liberals made comments before Gosnell’s atrocities that come close to advocating his brand of post-birth abortion. Noted atheist Richard Dawkins said in a video clip available on Youtube that he could find no moral objection to infanticide on babies up to a year old. Princeton philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer has written in support of after-birth abortions and infanticide for more than 20 years. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said in a televised congressional debate on CSPAN in 1996 that “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights [of a person].” In 2001, then-Senator Barack Obama argued against a bill in Illinois that would have required abortionists to provide treatment for infants who were born alive during abortions. The audio of the session is on Youtube. A 2011 article in the Journal of Medical Ethics argued that after-birth abortion should be permitted, even when the newborn is not disabled. In March 2013, a Planned Parenthood lobbyist told the Florida legislature in a video on the Weekly Standard that if an infant was born alive during an abortion, the “decision [of whether to kill or seek treatment for the baby] should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

If support for infanticide is shocking, it is only separated by a degree from Gosnell’s crimes and that by a degree from legal abortion. Beyond all the euphemisms and carefully chosen words is the reality that abortion kills a living human being that, in many cases, would be viable to survive on its own. According to the law, it is legal to kill a baby up to the 24 weeks old as long as it is inside the mother, but if it is born, killing it is murder. The difference in abortion and infanticide is only a short trip through the birth canal.

JD Mullane, a Pennsylvania reporter and one of the few journalists covering the Gosnell trial, reconsidered his pro-choice views after hearing testimony at the trial. Mullane told Mike Huckabee, “Gosnell pulls the curtain back from the inherent violence of abortion. You can't sit in that courtroom and learn about what abortion does to the unborn child and to the woman in many cases … you can't sit there day after day and week after week and listen to that testimony and not be changed, and not have a change of heart, or at least reconsider your position.”

The idea that people will see abortion for what it is and reconsider is exactly what the pro-choice members of the media are afraid of. The Apostle John wrote, “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed” (John 3:20). To put it in modern terms, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Read for yourself about the crimes of Kermit Gosnell and the Women’s Medical Society. The grand jury report detailing the charges against Gosnell and the clinic workers is available online at:


Originally published on

Sunday, May 5, 2013

Kermit Gosnell may change national conversation on abortion

The trial of Kermit Gosnell may represent a turning point in the American discussion of abortion. The story is not merely the heinous crimes committed by Gosnell and his staff; the other half of the story is the left’s almost total lack of outrage. As James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal wrote in his excellent summary of the case, the mainstream media almost totally ignored the entire case and trial until an outpouring of interest on the internet all but forced coverage of the trial onto television and into newspapers.

Bill Clinton made famous the line that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Under modern Democrats, the attempt to make abortion rare, if there ever was a real attempt, has fallen by the wayside. Obamacare’s contraception mandate also forces insurance companies to include coverage for abortifacient drugs and President Obama’s budget increased federal funding for mega-provider of abortion Planned Parenthood. While Gosnell was on trial, President Obama became the first president to speak to Planned Parenthood, telling the group “as long as we've got to fight to protect a woman's right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you've also got a President who's going to be right there with you fighting every step of the way” and “God bless you” according to Politico.

As the grisly details of Kermit Gosnell’s practice come to light, it is becoming apparent that the left is far more concerned with keeping abortion legal than in keeping it safe. (Clinton apparently meant safe for the mother; abortion is almost always fatal for the baby.) A major point that pro-abortion activists frequently make is that legal abortion is needed to avoid keep women from being maimed in “back alley” abortions. It is apparent now that these back alley abortions continue in the offices of people like Kermit Gosnell.

Among the dead from Gosnell’s Philadelphia office was a 41-year-old woman who had come to Gosnell for an abortion. According to the grand jury report, Karnamya Mongar, a Nepalese immigrant, was given repeated doses of Demerol while waiting for Gosnell to perform her abortion. After several hours of waiting in a drug-induced sleep, Mongar stopped breathing. It is not certain how long Mongar lay there dying before the clinic’s employees noticed. It is known that when she was discovered Gosnell half-heartedly performed CPR, but did not administer drugs that could have restarted her heart. The clinic had a defibrillator, but it was broken. Ms. Mongar was probably brain dead before paramedics were even called. The report states that before paramedics arrived, the clinic staff hooked up equipment and rearranged the body to make it appear as if Ms. Mongar died in the midst of a procedure. Any chance of reviving her was lost as paramedics were unable to get her out of the building for 20 minutes due to cluttered hallways and padlocked emergency door.

Gosnell came close to killing other women as well. The report details several other instances in which Gosnell’s medical incompetence and negligence resulted in serious illness and near fatal complications for his patients. Many clinic employees were not trained or licensed. One employee who commonly dosed out medications was an untrained high school student. Gosnell inadvertently implicated himself by recording hundreds of late term abortions as 24. 5 weeks, when the Pennsylvania law limited abortions to earlier than 24 weeks.

Gosnell’s record of abusing women goes back 40 years ago to 1972. On Mother’s Day, Gosnell offered to perform abortions on 15 poor women from Chicago who were bused to his clinic. Gosnell did not tell the women that they would be guinea pigs for a new abortion device, a ball of gel-coated plastic razors to be inserted in their uteruses. Their body heat was supposed to melt the gel, loosening the razors and cutting up the unborn babies. In reality, the device, called the “super coil,” caused serious complications for nine of the 15 women. One required a hysterectomy. The incident became known as the Mother’s Day Massacre.

There were many more recent reports of problems at Gosnell’s clinic. It is apparent that he flouted numerous laws and nearly killed an unknown number of women due to poor sanitary methods and negligence, yet Pennsylvania’s medical regulators did not investigate. There were a multitude of complaints including a doctor who noticed that many of his patients who went to Gosnell contracted the same venereal disease. The medical examiner of Delaware County informed the Pennsylvania Department of Health that Gosnell had illegally performed an abortion on a 14-year-old mother with an unborn baby at 30 weeks. In one case, Gosnell refused to halt an abortion for a woman who changed her mind. Then, on November 18, 2009, Karnamaya Mongar died of a drug overdose in Gosnell’s office.

The report notes that none of this triggered state inspections of the clinic. In fact, in 1993 Pennsylvania had completely stopped inspecting abortion clinics for political reasons under the administration of pro-abortion Republican Tom Ridge.

Even pro-choice Americans should be concerned about the abysmal conditions that Gosnell’s patients endured. There were many reports of infections and life threatening complications before Gosnell and his staff actually killed Ms. Mongar. It is readily apparent that Gosnell did not operate a “safe” abortion clinic and was actually a threat to the health and wellbeing of women. Any doubts to this effect should be dispelled after reading testimony about how Gosnell drugged patients who were upset or slapped them.

Gosnell was part of a black market for abortionists who will circumvent the meager restrictions on abortions that the courts permit states to enact. Gosnell was aided and abetted not only by his clinic staff, but by numerous referrers, many of whom must have known that Gosnell was performing abortions at much later stages than the law allowed. It seems that the patient’s ability to pay was Gosnell’s only concern. In the end, the raid on Gosnell’s clinic was not due to his many violations of the law, Mongar’s death, or complaints by other women or doctors. The 2010 raid was based on suspected illegal drug trafficking.

In many respects, Gosnell’s clinic was not unique. The undercover filmmakers at Live Action have made a several short films showing abortion clinic workers helping patients to break laws limiting abortions. The practice of circumventing abortion restrictions appears to be widespread enough to warrant further investigation.

There is also evidence that other abortion clinics are substandard when it comes to keeping clean and sanitary facilities. A clinic in Ohio was ordered closed last month after failing a state health inspection. A second Ohio clinic in Toledo may be closed as well. A Planned Parenthood clinic in Delaware is charged with using unsterile instruments and rushing patients through procedures on bloody tables. Police investigating a break-in at a Muskegon, Mich. clinic found similar unsanitary conditions. A Lexington, Ky. abortionist’s medical license was suspended amid charges of fraud and unsanitary conditions. A Wilmington, Del. Clinic was closed in March 2013 after four women were rushed to the hospital with complications within a month. In Atlantic City, N.J. an abortion clinic was closed in for a series of health code violations.

USA Today reported that abortion clinics in Delaware are not required to undergo routine inspections. Maryland does not inspect for cleanliness and New Jersey only inspects surgery centers. In Virginia, the cleanliness and safety of abortion clinics has become a political issue after the state’s clinics were issued 80 violations according to Breitbart. Inspections of clinics vary from state to state with several states apparently choosing not to inspect at all even though the potential for infection and disease is high.

The Gosnell case explodes several myths about abortion in America. Abortion is not the safe, sterile procedure that advocates make it out to be. Many clinics are apparently unsanitary even by basic standards. Many abortion clinic workers seem eager to help clients break the law and often avoid fulfilling even basic obligations for counseling.

Statistics show that other promises of abortion proponents have also been unfulfilled as well. Abortion proponents claimed that abortion would reduce out of wedlock births and child abuse. In reality, a Bowling Green State University study from 2005 showed that women who have had abortions are 144 percent more likely to abuse their children. A study by Edward Lenoski of the University of Southern California found that 91 percent of abusive parents had wanted their children.

The trend toward unwed motherhood has been accelerated since Roe v. Wade. A report released in March 2013 by the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and the RELATE Institute indicated that almost half of U.S. births are now out of wedlock. The average age when a woman first gives birth is now 25.7. The average age when a woman gets married has increased to 26.5.

Originally published on

Friday, May 3, 2013

A third of Americans believe armed revolution may be necessary

Sprit_of_'76.2A new poll released May 1 shows that nearly one third of Americans (29 percent) believe that armed revolution to protect civil liberties might be necessary within the next few years. The poll, by Fairleigh Dickinson University, found that almost half of Republicans (44 percent) believe that armed revolution may be necessary, only marginally higher than independents (27 percent). Only 18 percent of Democrats believe that armed revolution may be necessary.

The poll contrasts views on armed revolution with views on gun control. Fifty percent of the 863 registered voters polled believe that new gun control laws are needed while 39 percent disagree. Democrats favor new gun controls by 73 percent while 65 percent of Republicans are opposed.

Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson said, “The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for. If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away.”

An alternate explanation is that Americans view the right to keep and bear arms as an important civil liberty that is being threatened and that assaults on civil liberties make revolution more likely. The possibility of armed revolution may be a reaction to perceived attempts by the government to take away the guns owned by Americans. There are perceived threats to other rights as well. These include religious freedom , freedom of speech and government control of health care. The dramatic growth of government and increase in the federal debt have also led many to fear another financial crisis or the collapse of the federal government. President Obama’s disregard for the Constitution and rule of law in many instances from flouting bankruptcy law in the auto bailout to making unconstitutional recess appointments while Congress was not recessed have not eased conservative fears.

The results of the poll are even more surprising because of the lack of violence from conservative activists. In spite of fears from the administration and media, Tea Party meetings have produced few, if any, violent confrontations. Fears that prominent shootings, such as the one in which Gabrielle Giffords was wounded, were committed by right-wing extremists have proven unfounded.

It may be the first time that a poll has addressed the question of whether another armed American Revolution is likely, but with the surprising results in the Fairleigh Dickinson poll, the question will likely be revisited. It cannot be said with certainty, but it is extremely likely that the poll results would have been far different just a few short years ago.

Originally published on