Law Passed > CAIR booted from state hate-crimes board for hate propaganda, lies

 

Maryland: Governor signs bill ousting Hamas-linked

CAIR from state hate crimes monitoring board

MAY 22, 2024 3:00 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

Richly deserved and long overdue. In fact, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) never should have been on the board in the first place. Also, there should be no such board. A crime is a crime. If you assault someone, you should be prosecuted. If you assault someone while calling him a racial slur, you should be prosecuted. “Hate crime” is a concept that is predicated upon the assumption that there is speech that should be prohibited. This opens the way to larger restrictions on speech, and to tyranny.

CAIR Expelled from Maryland’s Hate Crimes Commission;

MEF’s Role Revealed

Middle East Forum, May 20, 2024:

PHILADELPHIA – May 20, 2024 – Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D) signed a bill on May 16 to oust the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) from a state board that monitors hate crimes. That decision, following unanimous approval by the Maryland General Assembly, followed months of meetings, drafting, and advocacy by the Middle East Forum’s campaign arm (MEF Action).

CAIR’s Maryland director, Zainab Chaudry, posted multiple antisemitic comments to social media in the aftermath of the Oct. 7 atrocity, when Hamas slaughtered 1,200 people in Israel, including 32 Americans, and abducted relatives of Maryland residents. She compared Israel to Nazi Germany and repeated Hamas media claims that Israeli Jews were harvesting the organs of dead Palestinians.

Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is a Satanic Reversal. Islam is the new Nazi. Claiming that they harvest organs from dead Palestinians is blood libel - an ancient Satanic scam. Islam has no use for the truth and no conscience whatsoever. 

Soon after, Maryland’s Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) temporarily suspended Chaudry from the state’s Commission on Hate Crimes Response and Prevention, on the grounds that her statements “risk disrupting the work and mission of the Commission.” Brown then had to reinstate Chaudry two weeks later, explaining that he lacked the legal authority to suspend her.

Brown’s reversal decision prompted Maryland lawmakers to introduce House Bill 763, at which point MEF Action got engaged. It met with the bill’s author, Delegate Dalya Attar (D-Baltimore City), distributed a dossier on CAIR-Maryland to key legislators, and engaged in other efforts to pass the legislation. MEF showed that Chaudry’s views reflect those of CAIR as a whole; for example, CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, stated in November that he was “happy to see” Israel’s border infiltrated on Oct. 7. Therefore, we argued, replacing Chaudry with another CAIR employee would produce similarly unacceptable results….

 

Bits and Bites From Around the World > Insurance Co. shamed in Russia; PETA Worries Bovine Baseball Beasts Bullied; More Power for Hapless Harris - Sharpton

..

Russian mother ordered to pay for repairs to train that mowed down 15-year-old son

has bill scrapped after public outcry – reports

29 Oct, 2021 18:19

© Unsplash / Sasha Yudaev

A Russian woman was reportedly told to cover maintenance costs after her son was killed by a high-speed train, with insurance bosses’ requests for compensation only withdrawn after the firm came under fire in the press.

In a statement issued to journalists on Friday, insurance company Rosgosstrakh said that it is now looking to return around 400,000 rubles ($5,645) paid by the family of the tragic boy since the 2019 incident. While the company insisted it is legally bound to collect funds on behalf of its clients, the statement said that “unfortunately the automated collection process may not take into account the social consequences for a particular person or family.”

The response, published by Moscow’s TV Dozhd, registered as a foreign agent by Russia’s Ministry of Justice, comes amid a public outcry after details of the case came to light. According to reports, the schoolboy was killed while walking across a ground-level pedestrian crossing at a railway station just outside Moscow. The 15-year-old is said to have been wearing headphones and did not hear the high-speed train coming down the tracks on its way into the Russian capital.

The young man, whose name has not been released, was thrown around 50 meters from the collision and died before emergency workers could get to the scene, sources say. According to Dozhd, Rosgosstrakh compensated the owner of the train, Russian Railways, for maintenance work in the aftermath of the fatal incident, and elected to collect damages from his family, alleging that he had violated station rules by being on the track.

“In order to avoid transfer of collection to the judicial stage and an increase in the amount of debt, you need to pay an amount of 400,972.37 rubles within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter,” a letter to the family reportedly reads. The company is now looking into the best route to return the funds to the bereaved mother.

It is so good to see that the conscience of Russian people is growing. There have been a few such stories where people have stood up for those badly treated. 40 or 50 years ago, such a thing would never have happened.

‘This can’t be real’: MLB fans in hysterics as animal rights watchdog

PETA deems the term ‘bullpen’ insensitive to cows

And they should have mentioned that "dugouts" are insensitive to dead and buried people!

28 Oct, 2021 18:42

The 'bullpen' could change names to be more respectful to cow rights © Bill Streicher / USA Today Sports via Reuters | © Agustin Marcarian / Reuters

Animal rights group PETA has called on baseball chiefs to change the term 'bullpen' to something a little less offensive to cows, such as 'arm barn', after complaining that the word "mocks the misery of sensitive animals".

And, I'm sure they are really upset about it!

PETA, or the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, have long positioned themselves as a voice for mistreated animals – something which only the most sociopathic in society would fundamentally disagree with.

But the watchdog has occasionally come under fire for what some see as overstepping their boundaries when it comes to ethics and animal rights.

And judging by the latest decree by the group, this seems to be one of those occasions. 

"As the World Series turns into a pitching duel, PETA is pitching a proposal to the baseball world," they announced.

"Strike out the word 'bullpen,' which references the holding area where terrified bulls are kept before slaughter, in favor of a more modern, animal-friendly term. PETA's suggestion? The arm barn.

"Words matter, and baseball 'bullpens' devalue talented players and mock the misery of sensitive animals," added PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman.

"PETA encourages Major League Baseball coaches, announcers, players, and fans to changeup their language and embrace the 'arm barn' instead."

According to RT Sport's analysis, the term 'bullpen' has been used in baseball since the 1870s – and has since migrated to several other definitions, also including holding cells used by police to detain criminals.

It has also been used by Marvel comics to describe their array of writers – 'The Marvel Bullpen' – as well as its original meaning as a holding pen for, well, bulls.

Given that the term has been associated with baseball for around 150 years, it would take a gigantic effort to change the word at this point in time – and surely the term 'arm barn' isn't the one that's going to replace it.

"Does PETA know what baseballs and baseball gloves are made with?" asked one fan in response to the report.

"The cows must have discussed this during their recent town hall meeting," joked another. "Just very upset and finally had enough."

"They got this from [satirical site] The Onion... this can't be real," said a third.

=========================================================================================

Democratic agitator Al Sharpton leans on Biden to give

Kamala Harris ‘more positions of power’

Oh, God! Help us!

29 Oct, 2021 00:05

©  Reuters / Evelyn Hockstein

MSNBC host and Democrat power-broker Al Sharpton has called for US President Joe Biden to “use” VP Kamala Harris more effectively going forward, despite her perceived failure to handle her existing responsibilities at the border.

Sharpton, whose National Action Network is a powerful player in Democratic Party politics, has called for Harris to be better deployed within the Biden administration. In an interview with The Root on Tuesday, he expressed dissatisfaction with the “marginal positions” and called for Biden to give the first-ever black and female VP “more positions of power,” suggesting “her being in charge of voting was important,” but that something more was required.

“I would like the president to put her in charge of the voting package and criminal justice. Also, he needs to put Kamala at the forefront of the George Floyd bill that he promised to get through,” he said, referring to a police reform bill that died in Congress last month. Neither party could reach an agreement on the legislation, and Biden has pledged to examine “further executive actions” in the hope of pushing some parts of the package through.

Harris “was a prosecutor and a state attorney general, so she knows the criminal justice system and understands both sides,” Sharpton opined, adding that “she is also a Black woman in the time of Breonna Taylor and other Black women who have suffered racism, so I think that she should have those assignments and be able to get certain things to Congress.”

However, Harris’ tenure as California state attorney general was not exactly kind to black women. They were more likely to be caught up in her infamous anti-truancy campaign, which saw parents locked up when their children failed to attend school. Despite attempting to distance herself from the program, video of her laughing over the initiative surfaced during the 2020 presidential primaries, helping sink her campaign. Harris’ office also attempted to cover up a massive scandal within the state’s crime lab and infamously attempted to withhold DNA evidence that could have exonerated a death row prisoner.

Despite her controversial criminal justice record, Sharpton insisted he wanted to see Harris “thrive,” vowing to “communicate that to the president,” but discreetly. 

“It would be unwise for me to have her at my event and use that as a platform to raise the issue, so instead, I will speak directly to the President,” he reasoned.

Harris was tasked earlier this year with managing the immigration crisis at the US-Mexico border, an assignment she largely ignored for several months as unprecedented numbers of migrants streamed into the country. An all-time record of 1.7 million arrivals have been detained in the fiscal year 2021.

While the Biden-Harris administration initially adopted a welcoming posture toward the crowds of immigrants surging into the US illegally, Harris was forced to roll back the welcome mat, belatedly telling the masses “Don’t come” or “you will be turned back.” However, neither Mexican nor American authorities have thus far been able to halt the human tide, and a thousands-strong caravan broke through a border crossing between Mexico and Guatemala last week, headed for Mexico City and ultimately the US.

The Biden administration has quietly readopted some of its predecessor’s border policies, despite running on a platform that denounced them as “racist.” Next month, the White House will reinstate Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, requiring migrants to wait out their asylum proceedings there instead of being permitted to live freely in the US while awaiting their court hearing. Attempts to revoke it were stopped in court in August, after Texas and Missouri filed lawsuits arguing the reversal had led to an uncontrollable influx of illegal immigrants.

#Ozzone 5-13 > Having a Clear Conscience Seems Nearly Impossible in Today’s Culture; Can You Do It?

 

Ozzone - 5-6 > Where the modern evangelical church has strayed so badly

 

60 Hospitals in Romania Won’t Do Abortions as More Doctors Refuse to Kill Babies

 Abortion backlash in Romania

And they haven't even seen 'Unplanned' yet

INTERNATIONAL   MICAIAH BILGER  

BUCHAREST, ROMANIA

Romania has one of the highest abortion rates in all of Europe, but a growing number of doctors in the country are refusing to abort unborn babies.

EU Observer reports 60 of the 189 hospitals in the country (about 30 percent) will not abort unborn babies because of their doctors’ moral or religious objections.

“The law does not oblige us to do this, as it is a service on request, and we can accept or not,” said Robert Danca, manager of Cuza Voda hospital.

Abortions are legal in Romania for any reason up to 14 weeks, without even required counseling or waiting periods, according to the report. While public hospitals must provide abortions by law, doctors may refuse under Romanian conscience protection laws.

Reporters with The Black Sea publication recently contacted all the public hospitals in the country to ask if they do abortions. The investigation found that 60 would not.

One doctor, Daniela Chiriac, told the news outlet that she quit doing abortions seven years ago at the Municipal Clinical Emergency Hospital in Timisoara because she now believes they are a sin.

“I thought that if I could avoid a sin, then I should do it,” she said. “There are many patients who ask me to recommend someone else and I refuse, because it is also a sin.”

According to the report:

Individual doctors in Romania have the right to refuse to perform abortions.

The 2016 professional code for medics outlines that any doctor can decline to provide services if it affects their professional independence or moral values, or contravenes their professional principles.

These “conscience-based refusal” laws are common in most European countries – but when every doctor in a hospital invokes them, women find their access to healthcare faces restrictions.

Human rights lawyer Iustina Ionescu argues that any woman refused an abortion by her local hospital could sue, drawing a distinction between individual doctors and the healthcare provided.

“The doctor might not be held responsible,” she says, “but ‘the unit’ is a service provider covered by the healthcare law, and does not have such an explicit provision. I would say it is illegal for the healthcare unit to refuse, but we would need [to bring] a case.”

Abortion activists are pushing to overturn conscience protections for these reasons. Some now argue that doctors should be forced to abort unborn babies, even if it goes against their religious or moral beliefs. Earlier this week in America, Democrats in Congress voted against several measures to strengthen conscience protections for medical workers who oppose the killing of unborn babies.

In Romania, some politicians are working to combat the high abortion rate with pregnancy support programs. According to the report, MP Matei-Adrian Dobrovie proposed providing state funding to pregnancy resource centers that provide support to mothers and babies. He said Romania has the second highest rate of abortions per live birth in the European Union.

“These centers exist in other countries, such as the United States, and in Romanian legislation they are not regulated,” Dobrovie said. “I proposed to the ministry of labour that these centers should be included and the occupation of assistant and counselor in the pregnancy crisis to be included in the social services.”

Bless you MP Debrovie. May the hearts of other legislators be so inclined.

War on Christianity - Ontario Doctors Can't Refuse to do Abortions or Euthanasia

Ontario Appeals Court Rules Christian Doctors Must Participate in Abortion, Euthanasia

TORONTO, May 15, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — An Ontario appeal court struck a blow against religious freedom today, ruling that the right of doctors to conscientiously object to participating in abortion and euthanasia is trumped by their patient’s right to equitable access to health care.

Amazing - calling abortion and euthanasia 'health care'. They both end up killing someone!

In a unanimous decision released Wednesday, the appeal judges upheld a divisional court’s January 2018 ruling that quashed a Charter challenge by Christian doctors to a College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) policy.

The CPSO policy requires doctors who object to abortion, euthanasia, and other morally objectionable “medical services” to give patients seeking these services an “effective referral” that is, to an accessible colleague willing to do the act. 

The policy also requires that objecting doctors perform such “medical services” in unspecified emergency situations.

It's hard to imagine many scenarios where either abortion or euthanasia are an emergency procedure!

The 74-page appeal court decision, written by Ontario Chief Justice George Strathy, with Justices Sarah Pepall and J. Michal Fairburn concurring, agreed with the divisional court and dismissed the appeal.

The divisional court ruled the CPSO policy did violate the doctors’ Charter rights, but that the infringement was reasonable given the “pressing and substantial” governmental objective of ensuring patients’ “right to equitable access to health care.”

There is “compelling evidence” that “vulnerable patients” seeking euthanasia, abortion, “contraception and other aspects of sexual health care” will “suffer harm” if their family doctors refuse them an effective referral, wrote Strathy in Wednesday's appeal court judgement.

“One can reasonably anticipate that the loss of the personal support of a trusted physician would leave the patient with feelings of rejection, shame and stigma,” he wrote.

However, the appeal court explicitly ruled the CPSO policies are “not regulations” and that non-compliance with them “is not an act of professional misconduct.”

At the same time, the CPSO policies do “establish expectations of physicians’ behavior and ‘are intended to have normative force.’ As such, they may be used as evidence of professional standards in support of an allegation of professional misconduct,” wrote Strathy.

“This is a set-back for every Canadian who wants her or his conscience to be respected by government authority,” said John Carpay, lawyer and president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, one of the intervenors in the case, in a press release.

The CPSO policy was challenged by three associations — the Canadian Physicians for Life (CPL), the Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians’ Societies (CFCPS), the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada (CMDSC) — and five Christian doctors. The case was argued in Toronto over three days in June 2017.

There were nine intervenors: the then-Liberal government of Ontario (the Ford Ontario government dropped out in November), Dying with Dignity Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Catholic Bishops of Ontario, the Catholic Civil Rights League, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, and the Canadian Professional Association for Transgender Health. 

The Christian doctors were represented by Albertos Polizogopoulos, who filed an appeal of the January 2018 ruling last May.

He argued the divisional court erred in law on 20 grounds, and in fact on at least 15 grounds, and that there was “neither evidence nor legal authority” for the court to conclude the Charter’s Section 7 “includes a right to equitable access to legal medical procedures.”

But the appeal court disagreed, tossing out Polizogopoulos’s appeal and upholding the divisional court’s finding that “physicians have no right to practice medicine, let alone a constitutionally-protected right to do so.”

Moreover, in Ontario, doctors “practice in a single-payer, publicly-funded health care system, which is structured around patient-centred care. In the case of conflict, the interests of patients come first, and physicians have a duty not to abandon their patients” (167), Strathy wrote.

He noted in his ruling that a pro-life doctor testified she would discuss abortion with a patient, point out that “the baby dies” and refer her to a pro-life counselling center.

Such a view “could reasonably be expected to have a deterrent and stigmatizing effect on the patient, impeding her access to the medical services she had requested,” he wrote.

But it could save the baby's life! 

The chief justice also referred to testimony of a Christian doctor who said she would tell a patient who wanted to transition to the opposite sex that such a transition was not in the patient’s best interests or in God’s plan.

This evidence demonstrates “how physicians’ religious objections can be a barrier to health care for marginalized groups. Such remarks could reasonably be expected to cause the patient stigma and shame,” Strathy wrote.

With an attempted suicide rate of more than 40% for trans people, shouldn't there be some attempt to make a person aware of the possible, if not probable, dangers they may face?

He quotes testimony of Dr. Barbara Bean of Toronto abortion center Choice in Health Clinic that the impact of physicians’ “moral and religious beliefs” causes “delay, trauma, shame and self-doubt” for their patients. 

Regarding the question of balancing the “salutary effects” of the policy against the imputed harm to doctors, he received “much assistance” from the brief of Dying With Dignity, a pro-euthanasia group that intervened in the case, Strathy wrote.

Dying With Dignity maintained patients seeking to be killed by a doctor should not have to “bear the burden of managing the consequences of physicians’  religious objections.”

“If a doctor is unwilling to take the less onerous step of structuring their practice in a manner that ensures their personal views do not stand in the way of their patients’ right to dignity, autonomy privacy and security of the person, then the more onerous requirement of transfer to a new specialty is a reasonable burden for that doctor to bear,” the group wrote.

The doctors’ groups decried the ruling in a Wednesday press conference.

“We are deeply disappointed that the Appeal Court upheld what we view to be a flawed and damaging position for the freedom of conscience and professional integrity of Ontario physicians,” CMDSC president Dr. Sheila Harding said.

The decision “doesn’t seem to make sense,” said Dr. Tim Lau, president of the CFCPS, noting that only 15 per cent of patients in Canada have access to palliative care, and people can “wait years” to see a psychiatrist.

“How can individual physicians be responsible for the provision of a whole system?” questioned Lau.

However, CPL is “encouraged” the appeal court “restrained the CPSO by ruling that an effective referral is not a medical referral. Furthermore, it ruled that not making an effective referral is not a matter for professional misconduct,” noted Nicole Scheidl, CPL executive director in a press statement.

Nevertheless, “failure to refer” could form the basis of a complaint to the CPSO, and “just the threat of a complaint from the College is extremely debilitating,” Larry Worthen, CMDSC spokesperson, said at the press conference. 

The policy may also deter pro-life individuals from becoming doctors in Ontario, Worthen said.

“The process is the punishment,” said Harding. “The concern here is not necessarily what a final outcome would be, so much as what the process would be, which could go on for months and months and months, and the burden that that would be on a physician caught in the crosshairs.” 

The doctors’ organizations have not yet decided if they would appeal the ruling, but that option is not off the table, they said at the conference.

What politically correct madness! Canada's laws were initially based on Judeo-Christian principals. But there is no place for God in today's far-left Canada. How is a doctor to rectify his/her relationship with Jesus Christ will killing people?

Imprimis to Save World from Price-Gouging, Soulless, Big Pharma

by John Prager 

As is well-known by now, one of the side effects of Daraprim, a medication needed by many AIDS and cancer patients, is uncontrollable rage — not because of any chemical properties of the drug itself, but because Martin Shkreli’s Turing Pharmaceuticals raised the price by more than 5,000 percent immediately after purchasing the rights to the medication. Until Shkreli’s greed caused the price to very quickly inflate, the lifesaving pill, which has been on the market longer than Shkreli has been alive, sold for just $13.50 per pill.

Shkreli provided numerous excuses for the price increase, the unfairness of which made headlines for weeks after the rather transparent attempt to effectively hold patients at gunpoint and rob them blind. While “Pharma Bro” ultimately promised to lower prices to an undefined amount at an unspecified point in time — something that has still not happened — another company has taken it upon themselves to completely embarrass the former hedge funder, who described the price increase as necessary.

San Diego-based Imprimis Pharmaceuticals, Inc announced on Thursday that it will be providing an alternative to Daraprim that costs a fraction of the pill’s pre-Shkreli price. The drug will be sold at as low as $99 for a 100-pill supply. Yes, that’s just about a dollar per pill.

“While we respect Turing’s right to charge patients and insurance companies whatever it believes is appropriate, (I don't) there may be more cost-effective compounded options for medications, such as Daraprim,” Imprimis CEO Mark L. Baum said in a press release. ARS Technica points out Imprimis’ alternative is not the same as Daraprim, but it is close:

“Daraprim’s active ingredient is pyrimethamine, which has been available since 1953 for the treatment of parasitic diseases (namely malaria and toxoplasmosis). Imprimis’ alternative also contains pyrimethamine as well as leucovorin, which the company said helps to reverse pyrimethamine’s negative effects on bone marrow.

Until now, Turing was the sole producer of a pyrimethamine-based drug, which is often prescribed to patients with compromised immune systems such as those suffering from AIDS and cancer.”

“This is not the first time a sole supply generic drug – especially one that has been approved for use as long as Daraprim – has had its price increased suddenly and to a level that may make it unaffordable,” Baum said. ” In response to this recent case and others that we will soon identify, Imprimis is forming a new program called Imprimis Cares which is aligned to our corporate mission of making novel and customizable medicines available to physicians and patients today at accessible prices.” He added:

“Today, some drug prices are simply out of control and we believe we may be able to help control costs by offering compounded alternatives to several sole source legacy generic drugs. Imprimis Cares and its team of compounding pharmacists will work with physicians and their patients to ensure they have affordable access to the medicines they need from the over 7,800 generic FDA-approved drugs.  Imprimis Cares, available in all 50 states, will work with all third party insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and buying groups to offer its patient specific customizable compounded drug formulations at prices that ensure accessibility and that provide a reasonable profit for Imprimis.  We are here to serve our patients and their physicians.  We believe that when we do a great job serving our customers, our shareholders will also benefit.”

Recently, Shkreli attempted to bribe Bernie Sanders to meet with him so the Turing CEO could attempt to justify the need for the massive price hike of Daraprim, even throwing a well-publicized tantrum when Sanders gave his campaign donation away to charity. Of course, that meeting is no longer necessary, as Imprimis is doing a very good job of showing that a drug company can turn a profit while still providing patients with lower-cost medication.

This is so awesome! I had been waiting for a pharmaceutical company to step forward and address the issue of spectacular greed within the industry. Imprimis has done it, and they are my heroes today. God bless you Mark Baum.

Pharmaceutical Company All About Profits - CEO

Valeant Pharmaceuticals CEO: 

We’re in Business of Shareholder Profit, not Helping the Sick

— October 9, 2015

J. Michael Pearson - Shrewd or Greedy blood-sucking leech

Ring of Fire
Martin Shkreli might be the present poster boy for Big Pharma’s psychopathic greed; however, he is only the most public face of a problem that is drawing increasing scrutiny from lawmakers whose constituents are sick and tired of an industry that is literally murdering people in the name of profits. Recently, the Progressive media turned its spotlight on yet another blood-sucking corporate vampire: J. Michael Pearson, the smirking, self-satisfied CEO of Valeant Pharmaceuticals.

Pearson’s company is not in the business of curing disease and easing suffering. It exists to make big money for its shareholders, something that Pearson readily acknowledges: “[If] products are sort of mispriced and there’s an opportunity, we will act appropriately in terms of doing what I assume our shareholders would like us to do.” In “acting appropriately,” Valeant has raised the prices on several drugs this year – in some cases, as much as 800%.

How are they justifying these price increases? We know it doesn’t have one damn thing to do with the cost of research and development, because this is done primarily at public universities at taxpayers’ expense. Nope – what Valeant and other drug companies are doing is setting their prices “based on a range of factors, including clinical benefits and the value they bring to patients, physicians, payers and society.” There is also stated concern about potential competition from generic versions that may come on to the market in coming months.

The bottom line, however, is that pharmaceutical companies will charge whatever they think they can squeeze out of patients and government programs. It’s a new industry trend, unique to America’s profit-driven health care “system,” which still underlies the Affordable Care Act. Like the vulture Shkreli, Valeant buys up established pharmaceutical companies with older products, then raises the prices to astronomical levels, figuring that insurance companies and programs like Medicare and Medicaid will simply pay whatever they have to.

The insurance companies won’t. If they do, they will raise their co-pays to levels that patients cannot afford. As for those government programs, it is possible that Valeant and the rest of the industry has finally overreached itself. Price gouging by the pharmaceutical industry is finally getting some attention from Congress. Of course, Bernie Sanders has been on this issue for some time. Now, Sanders’ Democratic colleagues are calling for a formal investigation into Valeant’s pricing practices. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is planning to issue a subpoena for information on recent price increases.

The ironic aspect here is that, instead of increasing shareholder returns, government scrutiny over those obscene price increases is having the opposite effect. Valeant’s stock price has dropped by 27% since mid-September, partially because of the impending investigation.

One is reminded of the old German folk tale of The Fisherman’s Wife. Published by the Grimm Brothers in the 19th Century, it tells of a woman for who was never satisfied with her blessings. She demanded more and more – and finally wound up with nothing as a result. Big Pharma has become just like the fisherman’s wife…and its insatiable greed will (hopefully) prove to be its own undoing.

For Democracy and Free Enterprise to work, it requires people of good-will making decisions. It seems there are fewer and fewer such men in America today. Can the system survive their spectacular greed and lack of conscience?