UPDATE: Just after Lila Rose broke the latest PP scandal, I started a diary about PP’s history of abuse and asked for help completing it. Here is the updated diary. It grew – a lot. Some of that is my writing style, I am sure, but I think the nature of Planned Parenthood and the methods they use to escape justice for their actions,  requires a detailed historical analyis. I hope you can take the time to make it through this lengthy diary.  

—–

A SUMMARY OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD’S FRAUDS AND FELONIES IN THE SERVICE OF IDEOLOGY[i]

 

WHY EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD AGREE THAT WE NEED TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD – NOW

 

MIKE WALLACE: Do you believe in sin — When I say believe I don’t mean believe in committing sin do you believe there is such a thing as a sin?

SANGER: I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world–that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.[ii]

Mike Wallace Interview With Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, 9/21/1957

 

 

———–

Both sides of the political isle are claiming that they want to reduce spending. Yet, the fight over what to cut, all too often leads to the compromise of cutting all too little. It is my belief that the reader, that is any reader, of virtually any age, gender, race or politic – should concur in the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  Is there anyone who will stand up and defend federal funding?  

-          Used to promote abortion, even to children as young as 5 years old?

-          Used to promote abortion, even if that means lying about the facts of abortion to convince women to have abortions?

-          Used to promote promiscuity and irresponsible sexual behaviors to children, teenagers, and those with HIV?

-          Used to promote racial eugenics?

-          Used to aid and abet criminals, including rapists, those who sexually exploit and abuse minors, and sex-traffickers?

-          Steals even more taxpayer money through fraudulent billing practices? 

I hope that the answer is no. I am not naïve enough to suggest that there aren’t those who will remain willfully ignorant of the facts shared in this summary. Those who will hold onto false defense of this organization, no matter how tenuous, illogical, or absurd.  But I do not  believe there are sufficient numbers possessing such an ideological fortitude to make a difference – if only the rest of us are truly informed.

I know there are many firmly held beliefs on both sides of the abortion debate, but the intent of this summary is not to convert. In the same way I would expect my pro-life friends to denounce those who advocate violence to end abortion, I would hope my pro-choice friends would join me in denouncing taxpayer funding of the pro-choice equivalent. De-funding Planned Parenthood is not about denying choice – because you will see, Planned Parenthood is not about choice. Nor is it about planning, or parenthood, or providing valuable services to the less fortunate among us. Even the most strident pro-choice advocates should be able to look at the facts and see that supporting Planned Parenthood is not what you’re movement is about. It is only those who intentionally, knowingly, and willfully use “choice” as a cover for their true ideological aims that will only go along kicking and screaming.

Why now?

In the last several weeks, shocking new video evidence of Planned Parenthood’s willingness to be complicit in the sexual slavery of underage girls has been released. This video is so shocking that it has already led to a vote in the house to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Yet, amazingly there are those still willing to defend federal funding of Planned Parenthood and their hope is downplay this story and re-insert Planned Parenthood’s funding as the budget process plays out.  Planned Parenthood has erected a wall of propaganda and half-truths to defend itself. In addition PP benefits from a lack of real scrutiny into its history of abuses. PP could be compared to an individual who is arrested for DUI. If it is a first offense and the person is perceived to do good things in the community, no one wants to throw the book at them. But in criminal matters, we look at the individual’s criminal history or “rap sheet” before sentencing. If it was the individual’s 3^rd, 4^th, 10^th DUI, we know that and we increase the penalty accordingly.

The problem with Planned Parenthood is that very few people ever take the time to look at the rap sheet and so PP is able to commit crime after crime after crime – literally and figuratively, but yet always receive the benefit of the first time offender who does good things in the community. This summary will demonstrate at least a portion of Planned Parenthood’s rap sheet, so that their true culpability can be assessed, and so that the propaganda and half-truths they use as a shield can be exposed.  

 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AIDS, ABETS, AND COUNSELS SEX TRAFFICERS OF 14-15 YEAR OLD GIRLS

 

Let’s begin with the most recent evidence. The video evidence described below can be found here.   

Sex trafficking of minors is a Federal crime, punishable by imprisonment for 10 years to life.

- 18 U.S.C. 1591

 

Any person who aids, abets, or counsels a federal crime to be commited may be punished as if they had commited the crime themselves. 

- 18 U.S.C. 2

 

As you watch the video’s or read the descriptions, understand that medical privacy laws do not protect the PP employees. Nearly all states require medical personnel to report certain crimes, especially those involving suspected abuse of minors.

 

January, 2011: Planned Parenthood manager in NJ conspires with investigators posing as sex traffickers managing 14-15 year old sex slaves. The manager advises on how to get abortions for the minor sex slaves, how to lie about their age, how to circumvent reporting requirements, and even how to use the girls in the sex trade while they are recovering. Manager also agrees to help get past the nosey nurse practitioner in exchange for bribes. Manager also provides a readymade handout listing another abortion provider who doesn’t follow reporting guidelines.

January, 2011: A second video of a Planned Parenthood in Richmond Virginia, a third video of a PP in Falls Church VA, a fourth of a PP in Charlottesville VA, a fifth video of a PP in Roanoke VA, a sixth video of a PP in the Bronx, NY and a seventh audio of a PP in Washington DC all show PP employees advising the “pimps” on how to get PP services for the 14 to 17 year old prostitutes who don’t speak English.

That is seven videos in all, seven locations in three states and the District of Columbia. The full length videos are on the website. Not one of the videos has been disputed by PP, beyond general innuendo that “they might be doctored.”  Below is more of the same transcript quoted in first paragraph of this summary:

Pimp: OK and then uh… OK this is the second part of it, alright? Um, this is all

confidential [in audible] alright?

 

PP: M’hm, yes.

 

Pimp: OK, Uhh so, we’re involved in sex work, alright, and there are some girls that we manage, that uh we’re not quite sure if I got it from one of them –

 

PP: OK

…

 

Pimp: Now the thing is, um, okay, so some of ‘em are like, eh, some of ‘em are young,

they’re kind of like, something like 15, 14, and then some of them don’t speak any English.

 

PP: Uh, huh, ok

 

Pimp: You know, cause they’re not even from here, so it’s like — how can they come in

here? Cause it’s like, they don’t always feel comfortable coming into facilities.

 

PP: One, minors are always accepted without parental consent.

 

Pimp: Ok, ok

 

PP: The only thing you do have to be careful is if they are minor, we are obligated, if we hear any certain information…

…

 

Prostitute: 14 and under… That includes being 14 and under.

 

PP: Yeah- 14, you know once they get to 15, then there’s a little bit more play room. So as long as they just lie and say, “Oh, he’s 15, 16….you know, as long as they don’t say 14, and as long as it’s not too much of an age gap, then we just kind of like, we just kind of play with it a little bit.

…

Pimp: What if they need an abortion though?

PP: Oh, that’s a com- that’s a completely different story now. No, no, now this is more -[crosstalk] If they come in for pregnancy testing — um, shit, at that point it still needs to be, you never got this from me, just to make all of our lives easier.

Pimp: OK

PP: If they’re 14 and under [circles clinic paper] just send them right there if they need an abortion, ok? [laughter]

Pimp: This is the spot? Okay!

Prostitute: Ok, will they ask questions or anything… will they need ID or something?

PP: They won’t need ID, them, they’re gonna be a little bit more different, but their protocols aren’t as strict as ours, and they don’t get audited the same way that we do, like with the [inaudible] (children?)

…

PP: Trust me, like, I use this like my Bible. [laughter, in audible] You get so many parents, [inaudible], I mean I understand where they’re coming from, but they’re like, “Oh, but she’s a minor” – ok, yeah, so? [laughter]

Prostitute: Yeah, but they still need to be seen

Pimp: Yeah, you know.

PP: exactly, you know she’s still entitled to care without mom knowing what the hell’s going on,

PP: Yeah, you know, and I’m the office manager here, so if you guys have any questions, just let me know. So for the most part, I’m usually the one doing most of the interviewing before they go back to the exam room.

Prostitute: Ok, great

…

Prostitute: And then, question, if it comes down that they do need an abortion, how long till they can be sexually active again?

 

PP: Aaaaoh, minimum two weeks, minimum two weeks.

 

Prostitute: Do you have any suggestions about what they could do in that time, like, cause they still need to work?

 

PP: Yeah, um, waist up.

 

Prostitute:  Waist up?

 

PP: Waist up, or just be that extra action walking by. Because then they’re at more risk for infection, and you don’t want to do that. So, and they can’t even wear tampons during that time period, so, yeah -

 

PP: Exactly, and you just kind of, so the whole thing is with me we already know, I see you, we already know we’re gonna kind of alter the story and kinda see what we can do to kinda tweak information.

…

Pimp: We might just need to uh, is there any way we could stream line this? Like, holla at you, slide you a little, you know, and you can just get em streamlined –

PP: We can solve – Depending on what the situation is, we might be able to do that.

Pimp: We could slide you like a $100, to just like uh, help us.

PP: And exactly, and then, I’m sure you guys are going to have a decent amount of money –

Pimp: Yeah, yeah –

PP: And the nurse practitioner will be like, said she’s stupid, but you know, at some point she’s going to be like “That car looks pretty fucking nice!”

Pimp: Yeah, I mean we could make this work for the both of us, I mean it’s like, I mean if you could fill out a number -

PP: Do, let me just find a pen…

These portions of the transcript speaks for themselves, there should be no reason to explain why the ideology they represent is vile. The transcript has been edited only to conserve space, and the full unedited video is available at the link. I do believe the PP Manager has created a top 10 “most obvious questions that the media will never ask.”

Imaginary Reporter: Is this the type of service, advising a pimp and sex-trafficker on how to continue to profit from the sexually exploitation of a 14 year old girl forced into prostitution while she is recovering from her illegal abortion – Is this the type of valuable service that PP requires federal funding for?

With regard to these video’s PP has stated 1) the videos were selectively edited or doctored, 2) this was an isolated incident, 3) we are retraining all of our 11,000 staff to avoid this ever happening again, 4) we reported it to the authorities, and 5) we fired (at least one) the PP manager involved. Now it should be obvious that 1 and 2 and 4 are not consistent with 3 and 5. Why would they need to re-train staff and fire employees if the videos were doctored, of if it was only an isolated incident, or if they properly notified the authorities in a timely manner? Obviously, as the video’s were staggered in their release, it became impossible to say “isolated incident” with a straight face. As the entire videos are available for all to see, it is also impossible to argue that they were selectively edited. There have been no specific allegations about a particular video being doctored in any way, and it is apparent that this allegation is always thrown out there so that some people will believe it and assume the videos are doctored.

As to PP reporting the incident, (which they describe on their website) they did report all of the incidents at once, more than a week after the videos were taken and after PP realized that they were the subject of a sting operation. PP has not even seriously claimed that any of the individuals in the videos actually took action to notify law enforcement independent of their realization that this was a sting and they needed to cover up their actions. Again, they just let the “we reported it” argument hang out there so that PP supporters can conclude that they legitimately reported their suspicion of crime versus reporting it only after they knew they were caught. It is a great shame that they can fire some of the employees involved, re-train all their employees, and still convince people that that no one did anything wrong because they reported it. It is the lack of scrutiny under such obvious deceptions that has allowed PP to remain unscathed as long as it has. A microcosm of this defense by nneuendo is well analyzed here.

If you still have any doubts, consider this confirmation from Abbey Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic, that this type of thing happens all the time, in Planned Parenthoods all over the country, and that she herself condoned such actions at her PP clinic while she was director. In her own words, “It happens all the time, I let it happen.”

Surely we can all agree that federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to aid, abet, and counsel sex traffickers of 14-15 year old girls?

—

THE DEFENSES, ACCUSATIONS, AND EXCUSES

Moving beyond this latest series of damning evidence against PP, take note of the common defenses and excuses that PP and its supporters use every time they get caught in a situation like this. Then evaluate as you learn more of PP’s history, whether any of these excuses are 1) true and/or 2) make any difference in light of the little shop of horrors that Planned Parenthood has become.

1.       These are isolated rouge employees and not official policy of Planned Parenthood or a systemic problem.

2.         Planned Parenthood provides many needed services that will be unavailable if PP is defunded.

3.       Planned Parenthood doesn’t use taxpayer money for abortion; they use our money for those other needed services.

4.         Abortion’s will actually increase if we defund Planned Parenthood, because so many people who get free contraception from Planned Parenthood will now get abortions.

 

 

 PLANNED PARENTHOOD WAS FOUNDED TO PROMOTE CONTRACEPTION AND TO SPECIFICALLY PROMOTE CONTRACEPTION AMONG CERTAIN RACES AND CLASSES OF PEOPLE.

 

Having reviewed the most recent scandal in PP’s history, let us return to the beginning of that history, to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger’s vision. This was her ideology; this is part of what Planned Parenthood was about, in her words;

 

“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children…”[iii]

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”[iv]

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”[v]

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”[vi]

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”[vii]

“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”[viii]

“The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”[ix]

“The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”[x]

“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped”[xi]

MIKE WALLACE: Do you believe in sin — When I say believe I don’t mean believe in committing sin do you believe there is such a thing as a sin?

SANGER: I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world–that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.[xii]

 

There is a dispute about the extent to which Sanger was a racist. There is also a dispute as to some quotes attributed to Ms. Sanger, and for that reason the quotes listed above not the disputed quotes, and are only those with sources, which are cited in the endnotes to this summary. [1]Planned Parenthood provides a spirited defense of Sanger here, but it is clear their defense of some her actions or statements, such as speaking in front of KKK Women’s Auxiliaries, require quite a strained interpretation, and some of the defenses are simply untrue. But in the end, even PP must disavow some of her more radical views and admit that she did favor contraception as a means of weeding out the weak. Wikipedia seems to take a more balanced approach here, which acknowledges her racism. I think a clearer picture of Sanger’s twisted vision can be gleaned by reading a portion of Woman and the new race, by Margret Sanger, scanned into Harvard’s online library at the link. Page 30 begins the chapter The Materials of the New Race, which, read in its entirety (17 pages) unfolds a complex worldview of racial purity whereby Sanger clearly believes that Blacks should not re-produce, along with many other groups of  “Non-Native Whites,” and feebleminded individuals, but where misguided compassion and hyper-fear of overpopulation may be the driving forces of that world view, versus a more simplistic hatred based racism. Whatever the motives, her

But PP does make the point in defense of Sanger that eugenics was being thoroughly explored during Sanger’s days of activism, and many people (though never a very high percentage) had views similar to Sanger’s. We do not condemn America and its founders for all eternity, because some those founders were slave owners. It is beyond the scope of this summary to condemn Sanger or PP, for nearly 100 year old bad ideas that may have had wide acceptance at the time and that were based on yet unproven social theories and moral progress. But to make sense of PP’s actions today, we can certainly place them in proper historical context.

There is also evidence that Sanger herself was pro-life, from her own autobiography:

To each group we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.[xiii]

Perhaps Sanger merely decried abortion and conceded that a life was destroyed by abortion to further her case for contraception, and it was never genuine but I will leave that for Planned Parenthood to argue. The point is that Planned Parenthood today simply ignores the pro-life sentiments of their founder and have for decades argued against her point that no matter how early, a life had begun.

Yet this is divergence of monstrous proportions. The true horror of Planned Parenthood appears to be that they have adopted the worst elements of Margaret Sanger’s vision, the goal of the elimination of “undesirables,” and the method of achieving that goal through the promotion of contraception, and then added the promotion of abortion – as another “method” to achieving that same goal. The result is that we really are funding an organization committed to aborting as many “undesirables” as they possibly can.

Where Sanger promoted contraception as a means to care free sex, PP now promotes abortion as a means to care free sex.

Where Sanger promoted contraception as a means to reduce the populations of the poor, feeble minded, and other weaker members of society, PP now promotes abortion as to means to limit those populations.

Where Sanger promoted contraception to reduce the birth rate of black people, PP now promotes abortion as a means to reduce the birth rate of black people.

This concept is so contrary to media portrayal and the resulting public opinion, that I know it cannot be grasped immediately by those encountering this information for the first time. It is admittedly a tenuous connection to grasp considering the span of time between the founding and the present operation of Planned Parenthood. But, there was an unguarded moment by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2009 that clearly linked Sanger’s ideas on contraception to their extension to abortion through Roe v. Wade in 1972, to today’s battle for publicly funded abortions –

But that’s what Ginsburg thought too!

These were the hair raising words of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader published in the New York Times Magazine in July 2009. Here Justice Ginsberg is perhaps caught in an unguarded moment discussing (the usually unspoken) reason she felt Roe v. Wade was decided as it was;

Justice Ginsberg:  Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into abortions when they didn’t really want them…

These are not the words of a pro-life zealot conspiracy theorist; these are the words of a Supreme Court Justice. This is not a quote from 1921 or even 1972, it is a quote from 2009.  Justice Ginsberg is a strong pro-choice advocate, stating why she thought abortion was made the law of the land. Again, abortion is not only viewed as a choice, or an unfortunate reality that must be dealt with as safely as possible – but as a goal to be promoted among certain classes of people “that we don’t want to have too many of.”[2] It is one of the more shameful omissions of the press that these statements were given very limited attention at the time. But clearly this statement,  made by someone with the power decide such things, represents the continuity of Margaret Sanger’s vision -  with abortion as the proxy for birth control.

Surely we can all agree that federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to promote abortion, much less to promote abortion as means of physical, mental, and racial eugenics?

 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD PROMOTES ABORTIONS (with our tax dollars)

The single fact that I believe distinguishes the PP ideology from the vast majority of Americans, even pro-choice American’s, is the distinction between the stated purposes of Planned Parenthood to protect the woman’s right to choose versus the reality that they promote one choice – abortion – as aggressively as they can get away with. 

There is no doubt that the concept of “choice” has been a winning slogan for the pro-choice movement. It was for Sanger as well. Agree or disagree, Sanger has at least had a reasoned argument for a woman’s right to choose contraception. However, she also had a world view whereby contraception should be encouraged, and even forced onto certain members of the population, which had no grounding in reason. Today,  PP’s online glossary whitewashes her unsavory world view in its ode to her battle for women’s rights:

Margaret Sanger (1883–1966)   
Founder of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Margaret Sanger began her career as a nurse who fought to legalize birth control in order to prevent women from relying on dangerous, illegal, self-induced abortions. Sanger established the first birth control clinic in the U.S. in 1916. In 1948, she helped found the International Planned Parenthood Federation. In the 1950s, Sanger drove the research and development of the birth control pill. One of the world’s leading sex educators, Sanger convinced people around the world that they held these four basic human rights:

• A woman has a right to control her body.
• Everyone should be able to decide when or whether to have a child.
• Every child should be wanted and loved
• Women are as entitled as men to sexual pleasure and fulfillment.

In the same manner, Planned Parenthood’s outward mantra is that of promoting a woman’s right to choose, but the facts show “choice” as the often thinly veiled double-speak for their true agenda – performing as many abortions as they possibly can.

As to using our tax dollars for abortions, the entire premise is a fallacy as even if PP segregates its government money from its other income, the government money is used for abortion no matter how it is actually spent. Assume my expenses, including a $25 a month gambling habit is $125 a month and my income is $100.00 a month. You decide to help me out, by supplementing my income to the tune of $25.00 a month, but make me promise not to spend it on gambling. The simple math is if I spend your money on rent and my money on gambling or vice – versa, it doesn’t affect the fact your $25.00 allows me gamble. There is no reasoned argument to the contrary.

But in this case, it goes well beyond the fallacies of the premise. For instance, with a combined total of over $1,000,000.00, Planned Parenthood was the largest pro-choice donor to federal candidates and committees,  and the largest pro-choice spender on lobbyists. So PP uses our money to elect and lobby for abortion.

They also use all their other operations to feed and increase their abortion business, by constantly promoting abortion. Abbey Johnson, a former Director of Planned Parenthood who became disillusioned with her job after her bosses pressured her for months to increase profits by performing more and more abortions, put it plainly:

Every meeting that we had was, ‘We don’t have enough money, we don’t have enough money — we’ve got to keep these abortions coming, it’s a very lucrative business and that’s why they want to increase numbers.”

But don’t PP’s contraceptive services actually reduce abortions? Ms. Johnson reports:

54% of abortive women state that they were using contraception when they got pregnant. Planned Parenthood uses contraception for foot traffic, they provide birth control that is not likely to work for these women.

But haven’t abortions been going down lately?

From Planned Parenthood’s own 2008-2009 Annual Report we see that although overall abortions are going down, Planned Parenthood’s share of those abortions is rising dramatically.

From their own factsheet[3], in 1997 PP received $165 million from taxpayers and performed 165,174 abortions. In 2009 PP received $363 million from the federal government and performed 324,008 abortions. In almost identical graph lines, for every $1,000,000.00 in taxpayer dollars received, PP performs roughly another 1000 abortions. But they don’t use our money for abortions?

 

*Chart Courtesy Marjorie Dannenfelser, as posted on Redstate.com

Perhaps, it can be argued, PP is merely trending with the uptick in abortions overall, and not actually using taxpayer dollars to promote abortions? Not so. In 2001, there were 1,291,000 abortions performed in the United States of which Planned Parenthood performed 16.5% (214,026).  As of 2008, the Guttmacher Institute (also pro-choice) reported that abortions nationwide were down to 1,212,400.  A modest decrease of roughly 6% from 2001. But in spite of the overall decrease, Planned Parenthood performed 324,008 abortions in 2008, an actual increase of 110,000 abortions from 2001, a statistical increase of 52.1% and an increase in PP’s share of all abortions from 16.5% % to 26.72%. Perhaps this isn’t sufficient data standing alone to absolutely conclude PP promotes abortion, or that it is our tax dollars causing the steady increase in abortions done by PP, but it is a very strong indicator.

Prior to the current amendment to defund PP, the previous congresses Omnibus Appropriations bill allocated $327 million for the Title X Family Planning Program – which provides funding to Planned Parenthood. This is a $44 million increase over the last four years and $710 million was allocated for international family planning/reproductive health which provides funding to organizations such as Planned Parenthood that promote and perform abortion overseas. This marks a massive $270 million increase over the last four years. This is over $1bllion taxpayer dollars for abortion services. If PP receives 100 million of the overall increase, we can expect them to perform another 100,000 abortions in 2011.

3% Adoption Rate

In addition, in 2009, Planned Parenthood referred less than 10,000 women for adoption to go with their 324,000 abortions, or about a 3 adoption rate. You have a better chance of having a second child in China than having a child based on a consult with Planned Parenthood.

 

“They will coerce anyone into an abortion… minors are the easiest to sell. We are all good salespeople and that is our job.”

Former PP director Abbey Johnson.

In 2008 and 2009, an undercover investigation revealed multiple Planned Parenthood employees and doctors telling numerous lies or half truths to sell abortions to undercover investigators. They lie about when the heart starts to beat, about the relative complications of abortion versus having the baby, about pro-life materials being fake and pressure the investigators to have their abortions now, when it more safe and less costly. There is no thoughtful discussion about the choices of raising, adoption, or abortion – everything is geared toward getting the abortion. Similar confessions and allegations have been surfacing periodically for years.

PP bills itself as “The Nation’s Largest Sex Educator”

Also consider how PP spends our money in other ways to promote abortion, if not on the actual procedures themselves. PP considers itself to be the nation’s largest sex educator reaching over 1.2 million people a year with their programs, and boasting 1.25 million visits per month to their website.

Planned Parenthood spends a lot of its money on outreach to children and teens and creating sex-education programs that “provide medically accurate and age-appropriate sex education and professional training in our communities across the country.” This language is taken directly from Planned Parenthood. As usual, the wording makes it sound somewhat innocuous, but when it is further clarified in a section on the PP website called “What children need to know and when they need to know it,” it can be pretty nauseating:

 

Get them young!

 

Here is some of what Planned Parenthood lobbies for children 5 years old to learn about sex:

For 5 – 7 year olds:

In the 5 -7 year old category 0 “sexual pleasure” is hyperlinked to a page including the following:

So at sometime before your child reaches age 7, PP wants to teach them that no matter what your parents say about sex or “sex play” – it’s good for you! Clearly girls will not get pregnant and have a need for abortion, until they have sex. The unabashed advocacy that children as young as 5 years old, (7-9 years before they even enter puberty) engage in sex to so they can live longer lives clearly promotes abortion with false advertising.

Once your child hits the 8-12 age group you’re really ready for the big time –

Notice that when you are 8 you need to be told twice that you don’t have to have a baby, and then learn about abortion. Of course it gets ultra graphic at this age and this is also the category that lands Planned Parenthood in the negative press every so often, when some 8 or 9 year old’s parents find out they were learning about anal sex or tasting condoms in class. Apparently that’s why they call it comprehensive sex education, all 5 senses are involved.

Remember also that this type of education is part of what is meant when PP defenders accuse of PP’s critics of depriving the public of the valuable services PP provides. Another such valuable service is PP’s advice to HIV sufferer’s that they have no obligation to inform their partner’s that they have HIV.

Planned Parenthood is very open about its promotion youth. Their 2010 annual report is worth looking at; for the sheer volume of pictures of children in the report, for the ways in which they spend taxpayer dollars to lobby and legally fight every attempt made to require women to receive complete information before making their “choice,” and to seek the dismantling of all “abstinence only education,” and for the announcement despite all the public denials that they are fighting for and they believe Obama Care will provide federal funding for abortions. PP was proud of their marketing efforts:

During 2008–09, Planned Parenthood Online launched a redesigned site with a contemporary look and feel that connects with the way young people “live” online.

 

It is astonishingly brazen that PP even attempts to deny that they promote abortion. Just review how their website helps you decide –

…you have a lot to think about. You have three options — abortion, adoption, and parenting.

Note that abortion is listed first and parenting last. But that’s just the beginning, if you check out the “parenting option” here is what you should consider –

Some Things to Ask Yourself If You Are Thinking About Raising a Child

If you are already a parent, ask yourself how bringing another child into your family will affect your other children.

Think about what your answers mean to you. You may want to discuss your answers with your partner, someone in your family, a friend, a trusted religious adviser, or a counselor

It does not take a lesson in subliminal messaging to see that EVERY single consideration regarding parenting is negative towards parenting. Moving on, PP doesn’t really have positive considerations regarding adoption either, although it doesn’t seem quite as depressing as parenting.

Some Things to Ask Yourself If You Are Thinking About Adoption

The only thing that can be said in fairness is that on the “abortion” page, there is a 50% / 50% pro/con mix of questions. But how about informed consent – the couldn’t be deceptive about the risks of abortion could they?

Without venturing down the breast cancer path, stating “Safe, uncomplicated abortion does not cause problems” is like saying “Safe uncomplicated parachute landings will not cause you physical harm.” It is another blatant persuasion technique, compounded because it is misleading a potential patient about the actual risks.

So PP’s founder promoted abortion, a former director states plainly that they promote abortion, video shows them deceptively promoting abortion, the stats show them using tax-dollars to increase the number of abortions, and referring less than 3% of women for adoptions, they clearly want to sexualize and indoctrinate children beginning at age 5 that abortion is just another outcome of pregnancy, and their “choice” aids are deceptively persuasive.

Surely we can all agree that federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to promote abortion?

 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD CONTINUES TO PROMOTE ABORTIONS ACCORDING TO RACE

 

In addition to the founder’s views, and Justice Ginsburg’s apparent restatement of those views, there is additional evidence that Planned Parenthood promotes abortions according to race.

In a 2010 audio tape investigation, many Planned Parenthoods across the country were willing to accept financial donations specifically designated to abort black babies because the caller wanted to reduce the number of black children. Some PP employees even agreed with that purpose, none expressed outrage or refused the donations. One conversation went like this;

Idaho donor: The abortion—I can give money specifically for a black baby, that would be the purpose?

PP Rep: Absolutely. If you wanted to designate that your gift be used to help an African-American woman in need, then we would certainly make sure that the gift was earmarked for that purpose.

Idaho donor: Great, because I really faced trouble with affirmative action, and I don’t want my kids to be disadvantaged against black kids. I just had a baby; I want to put it in his name.

PP Rep: Yes, absolutely.

Idaho donor: And we don’t, you know we just think, the less black kids out there the better.

PP Rep: Understandable, understandable.

Idaho donor: Right. I want to protect my son, so he can get into college

PP Rep: Alright. Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited, and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.

There is statistical evidence of targeting by race. 67-80% (depending on the study) of PP’s clinics are located in minority neighborhoods. Not coincidentally, while black child-bearing women make up a just 12.8%  of the population, they receive 36% of abortions, that is triple what the percentage would be the number was proportional. More than twice as many black Americans have been aborted since 1973 as have died from; the combined total of heart disease, crime, accidents, cancer and aids.  

Also, as noted by Abbey Johnson above, the average cost for an abortion surgery is around $550.00, with a sliding scale discount that benefits, the poor and the extremely young – and apparently sex criminals as well: If you listen to the first set of videos above, the Washington PP informs the “pimp” that she can probably get discounts for her 14-15 year old non-English speaking sex-workers of about $250, based on income. So the sliding scale discount for pimps appears to around 50%. Why is a major surgery like abortion about the same cost as dental exam? Supply and demand. If the price goes up, the demand goes down. Some of those women in minority neighborhoods might chose adoption or caring for their child versus abortion.

Surely we can all agree that federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to promote abortions of black and other minority children?

 

NOT THE FIRST TIME PLANNED PARENTHOOD AIDED AND ABETED SEX OFFENDERS

 

Planned Parenthood has been caught red handed numerous times protecting sex-offenders.

June 24, 2008: A Bloomington Indiana Planned Parenthood employee coaches an investigator posing as 13 year old girl impregnated by 31 year old man to lie about the father’s age, and cover up felony statutory rape. Discovery of statutory rape must be reported in Indiana.

June 24, 2008: The scenario is duplicated in Indianapolis where two Planned Parenthood employees coach an investigator posing as 13 year old girl impregnated by 31 year old man to cover up felony statutory rape and get an abortion in a state that doesn’t have parental consent laws.  

July, 2008: The scenario is duplicated both in Tuscon and Phoenix Arizona where a Planned Parenthood employee coaches an investigator posing as 15 year old girl impregnated by 27 year old man to cover up felony statutory rape and get around parental consent laws. Discovery of statutory rape must be reported in Arizona.

The same is scenario is repeated in Birmingham, AL, Memphis TN, Milwaukee WI, and Louisville, KY. That is 8 clinics in 6 states all assisting a 13-15 year old girl to get an abortion, lie about the age of their abuser to protect him, and in some cases get around parental consent laws. In 2008, PP made the same arguments they make now that these were a few bad apples, that the tapes were edited, that they would re-train their workers.

And in civil and criminal legal actions against PP;

1998 – 2009: Six lawsuits filed against Planned Parenthood for failing to report rape and sexual abuse of minors, allowing the rapist to continue to abuse the children. The cases were in Santa Clara CA, San Francisco CA, Phoenix AR, West Hartford CT, 2 in Cincinnati OH.

 Just last week, the only Prosecutor brave enough to file charges against PP testified to his findings  

Kline revealed in his sworn testimony that his investigation of the KS abortion industry found 166 cases of abortions performed on girls age 14 and younger by Planned Parenthood in Overland Park and George Tiller in Wichita. Each abortionist reported only one case to the authorities, leaving 164 unreported cases of statutory rape between the two abortion clinics:

It just isn’t reasonable to view the evidence and assume, that this many people are simply be “out to get Planned Parenthood.”

Surely we can all agree that federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to assist in the cover up of statutory rape?

 

Conclusion

Can we stop Planned Parenthood’s frauds and felonies in the service of ideology?

In summary, recent video investigations have shown that that Planned Parenthood is “disturbingly eager to facilitate the sexual exploitation of children forced into prostitution.”[xiv] 

Ad to this the evidence that Planned Parenthood is disturbingly eager to facilitate the sexual exploitation of minors forced into sexual relationships.

Ad to this the evidence that PP is disturbingly eager to promote abortions for the purpose of racial eugenics.

Ad to this the evidence that PP is disturbingly eager to promote abortions generally, and promote abortion specifically to children, beginning at age 5.

It seems difficult to comprehend how this could be so? Wouldn’t it just be easier to believe the rationalizations of Planned Parenthood than to accept what is before our eyes?

Yet, it is unavoidable that what is happening is merely a modified version of Planned Parenthood’s founder;’s vision. Margret Sanger was very clear and unambiguous that certain people should not be procreating – 1) most non-whites, 2) weak and feeble minded 3) diseased or sickly, 4) prostitutes, and 5) women under 22 to name a few.[xv] It must be remembered that Sanger didn’t pretend to posit her ideology for profit, or merely for women’s rights – she felt that preventing these pregnancies was crucial to the survival of the American Race and civilization as a whole. To her “the greatest sin” was to bring the wrong kids of babies into the world. It therefore follows that even as disturbing as child rape is, the real sin would be allowing the fruit of that rape to come into the world. As disturbing as promoting and coercing black people, or poor people, or young people, or sick people into having abortions may be, the real sin would be populating the world with their offspring.

Planned Parenthood’s actions are so horrific only because the foundation for their their worldview, their ideology, their religion is simply that horrific.  And they are aware that most of the world sees their ideology in this way. Their entire world then becomes a fraud in service of their ideology. The only way to serve their ideology is to mask their ideology as something completely different than what it is, something people will accept. They have not, nor will they in the future blink at commiting frauds and felonies in the service of that ideology.

But what about profit Abbey Johnson described – isn’t that just as likely to be the cause? Making your numbers no matter how much you have to look the other way? Isnt that less conspiratorial and more realistic? Money is always a reasonable motive, but it is difficult to believe that so many individuals in one organization, and so many staunch defenders can be so corrupt and callous merely for money.

I think it is more likely that when PP took Sanger’s vision and corrupted the corrupt even further by promoting abortion, by sexualizing young children, by shameless distortions of healthy sexuality,  –  seeking profit over real “choice” and seeking profit no matter who was hurt – was the natural extension of that corruption.

Once PP took that leap of active eugenics versus preventative eugenics, it became apparent that abortions are more profitable than handing out free condoms. To then promote and coerce abortion because it is not only good for society, but profitable, was an easy leap. All the difficult lines had already disappeared in the rear view mirror. The more money PP makes, the more its  ideology be implemented and spread.[5] Thus profit is a motive, but merely in service to ideology.

So it is no surprise that Planned Parenthood would not be satisfied with the hundreds of millions of dollars they already receive from the taxpayers – they needed to steal more.  Last year, dozens of Planned Parenthood centers were caught in Los Angeles defrauding the taxpayers to the tune of $180 million dollars by overcharging the government for birth control pills, and this example in just one city reinforces a suspected massive pattern of overbilling in other states. That is $180 million dollars stolen from the taxpayers in just one City alone. If the patten is like everything else Planned Parenthood does  - widespread – then we are being defrauded to the tune of billions of dollars. This is simply to reinforce what has already been proven, that there is no positive side to Planned Parenthood and that there is no rehabilitation for Planned Parenthood. 

 

All that is being debated and advocated is stop forcing the American taxpayer to fund this organization. Looking back over PP’s defenses and excuses - 

1.       These are isolated rouge employees and not official policy of Planned Parenthood or a systemic problem.

2.         Planned Parenthood provides many needed services that will be unavailable if PP is defunded.

3.       Planned Parenthood doesn’t use taxpayer money for abortion; they use our money for those other needed services.

4.         Abortion’s will actually increase if we defund Planned Parenthood, because so many people who get free contraception from Planned Parenthood will now get abortions.

 

Is there any way to believe that any of them are true? And even if they were, do any of them justify continued tax payer funding in light of these crimes and frauds? Would we fund the slaveholder if he handed out free lollypops on Thursdays? Would we fund Hitler because he provided prosperity for the non-jews? 

Would we fund Planned Parenthood because we assume they must provide some service to somebody that has some benefit?

 

 

What can be done?

The problem is that even though these facts about Planned Parenthood are there for anyone to see, very few have taking the time to look. Many are looking now because of the serious criminal propensities demonstrated in the most recent investigation and Congress has voted to defund Planned Parenthood. But Planned Parenthood and their supporters are succeeding in their false defenses and excuses. If the public and the decision makers know all the facts, then these defenses and excuses will fail.

Therefore the solution is simply to create mass awareness of the facts about Planned Parenthood, so that they cannot be ignored. Take this information and get it into the hands of as many people as you can. Conservative friends, liberal friends, everyone you know.

If you yourself have contacts or your friends have contacts with Congressman, Senators, or those in the media – get this information in their hands and request read it. Conservative congressmen and women need ammunition to make a stand on the insanity of hundreds of millions of tax dollars going to this organization. Moderate congressmen and women need this information so they are not pressured by the false defenses and excuses of Planned Parenthood and its allies. Liberal congressman and women need to know exactly what it is they are defending.

If you’re associated with Tea Parties, or local political groups, get this information distributed to your members.

If you spend time on the internet, post this link or this information wherever you see Planned Parenthood being falsely defended.

It’s a simple matter of getting the truth out there. If we don’t, we are condoning the continued funding of this horrific organization with our tax dollars.  

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Special thanks to Lila Rose and her team at Liveaction.org, Mark Crutcher and his team at lifedynamics.com, and Abbey Johnson for their groundbreaking and brave work in bringing the truth about Planned Parenthood into the light.

Special thanks to Redstate.com contributors, Ben Howe , Jerome Hudson, TNJim, Marjorie Dannenfelser, “Heartlander,” and “Lineholder,” for ideas, content and citations.

And this is directed at Man of Moeller John Boehner and anybody else the Media cannot avoid giving air too.

It’s like 20 minutes since the smoke stopped coming out my nostrils from the media blaming the Tea Party for the acts of a homicidal maniac, and they strike again so repulsively I don’t even have words, and then they do it again!

1.       CBS reporter gets gang assaulted and raped by 200 men in Egypt’s public square yelling “jew,” “jew, “jew” and CBS covers it up. Doesn’t report it.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1317384

 

2.       Clarence Thomas Protestors asked what should be done with him, replied:

-          Put him back in the fields

-          Hang him

-          String him up

These are 3 different people talking about a black SC justice. Not covered by mainstream media according to Hannity last night.

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/02/progressives-protest-clarence-thomas-go-back-to-the-fields-string-him-up-video/

So my proposal is simple. Our guys that get airtime have to take it to the media, and they have to become the media, reporting stories that the media doesn’t. Look these guys are out to draw and quarter you no matter what, stop playing their game. I only watched one Sunday show this week, “Meet the Press” and not all of that one, but I will use it as an example of what I am talking about.

 

GREGORY: Recent polling shows more than half of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim; don’t you have some responsibility as the leader of the party to correct this misperception?

BOEHNER (paraphrase):   I believe him, but I can’t tell people what to think.

BOEHNER (my answer):   Wow, I mean I think this is your responsibility isn’t it? You guys are the media, not me. I think you’ve got to own up to this one. Clearly you report that Obama is a Christian, but people do not believe you. I think that’s because the people don’t trust you, and especially don’t trust you when it comes to reporting on these types of issues. CBS’s own reporter gets raped in the public square by 200 Egyptian men as they chant “Jew” “Jew” and CBS doesn’t report the story because it conflicts with their headlines of how peaceful and democratic the protestors are? If you guys keep trying to create the news instead of reporting the news, then the American people aren’t going to trust you on the little things either. A couple of weeks ago many in the media were blaming the tea party for the actions of  homicidal manic, with no evidence at all, regurgiting the baseless racist slurs against the tea party and attributing a killing spree to the use of political analogy by tea party members. Now last week, a video was taken of a protest against Clarence Thomas in Florida, where three separate protestors called for a Black Supreme Court Justice to hung, to be strung up, to be put back in the fields. I haven’t heard any media outcry about actual rhetoric to hang a black man and his wife – but Sarah Palin is guilty for saying she is going to “target” certain officials in a political campaign? Look, the People notice this stuff, maybe not everybody, but lots of people do.  If you want people to believe you, then start telling the truth, but don’t lay it on me.

GREGORY: Your budget proposal only cuts spending from discretionary items, a very small portion of the budget and doesn’t address the majority of the budget, entitlement programs, why are you messing with these little items?

BOEHNER (paraphrase): We will get there, but it’s going to be a longer process.

BOEHNER (my answer):   I don’t think the American people think that saving 100BILLION dollars this year is a small amount, is that what you’re saying?

GREGORY (pretend): Well, it is only a small % of the overall budget…

BOEHNER (my answer):  Look, I don’t know if you’ve ever had a serious budget crisis in your home, but many of the American people have.  Just because your mortgage is 40% of your budget doesn’t mean you go to Mortons and have a steak dinner because that’s only 1% of your budget. That’s insanity. The other thing that the American people told us is that they don’t want huge things to happen fast. I think we saw that with Health Care. If we have to affect entitlement programs that will have a significant impact on many if not all Americans, they don’t want us to come in a few weeks after gaining power and make that kind of change. But they don’t want us to sit on our hands and eat steak either; I think that’s common sense. Finally on this issue, the President refused to address the budget crisis until after his panel completed its work. They finished their report, and it discusses the kind of hard choices you are talking about, but the President completely ignored the report and introduced a budget that continues massive spending and tax increases. He’s got the report, he’s the president, he is supposed to lead, he has has promised he would lead on this issue. If it turns out that report was just a delay tactic so the President could keep eating steak for a year, then we will lead on the tough issues. Make no mistake we will lead.  

GREGORY: How do you think Obama handled the Egyptian situation?

BOEHNER (paraphrase): Obama handled the situation well.

BOEHNER my answer: Overall, I am not going to criticize the President’s handling of the Egyptian situation. First of all, it’s not my job to focus on a rapidly evolving situation like that, so he may have more information than I do. Second, Egypt was not a republic and Mubarak was not an angel, but he did keep radical extremists out of power and he was our ally. I agree with the President that if the people want that freedom, it is their right to demand it. I do wish he would speak up for our interests as well though, and make it known that the people of Egypt must be wary of replacing a dictator with an evil radical Islamist government that will not be our ally. You have to remember, our Republic is founded on a common belief that all men and women have inalienable rights derived from our creator, in Egypt there is no such common belief, large majorities support very abusive practices towards women. I mean what good is democracy if the people approve of 200 men assaulting and raping a woman in public, chanting that she is a Jew. I hope that’s not want they place Mubarak with and I wish the president would make that clear as well.

He wants to support and congratulate them, I think that’s great, but he could have given them some sound advice of things to watch out for too. The other thing is I don’t know how the President picks and chooses which young protestors to support. When the people protested in Iran, who is not our ally, and who seeks the destruction of our allies, the President voiced almost no support for Iranian people. When we had probably double the number of people that protested in Egypt, most of them also young people, and Americans, just a few weeks ago peacefully protesting for the freedom of life for the unborn – the President didn’t congratulate them, encourage them, or admire their convictions.

— — —

 

Every elected official with air time needs to start doing this. If our guys can’t get a spine and start dealing with the media with honesty, then we are just doomed. I don’t know what it is, are they afraid the media will retaliate? You have to pretend you’re an idiot so the media will like you. Give credence to their garbage story lines? So what – if they keep you off the air they look even more foolish. Is it that Washington Culture is so corrupt they honestly don’t know the people would cheer them wildly if they took a stand? I don’t know what it is – but truth has to make a comeback at some point, it might as well be now.

—

 A liberal will seek to undermine the authority and significance of the Constitution by pointing to the 3/5ths compromise as if the document embraced slavery, a moderate will acknowledge the document’s weakness but maintain its authority and significance on the whole, and a conservative will see that the compromise, as distasteful as the words themselves may be, is responsible for ending slavery in America. If there were no compromise, there would have been no union; if there were no union there would never have been a war to preserve the union, and to make all men free.

—

In 1939 a group of people published a book called Alcoholics Anonymous. The book provided a solution to the previously untreatable condition of Alcoholism. The success of the program quickly garnered much press, notoriety, and attention from philanthropists. The word of a solution thus spread very quickly. Yet, it wasn’t long before battles over prestige and money threatened to tear the fledgling society apart. It was decided then that AA would be self supported, would use attraction rather than promotion, and would remain anonymous at the level of press, radio, and film. In other words, media attention was necessary to communicate the solution to the suffering, but media attention then became a destructive force that had to be jettisoned.

__________

I confess that In the 2008 primary I passionately supported Ron Paul. I had bumper stickers, yard signs, campaign materials on hand, and maxed out donations.

As a long-time conservative Republican, and casual political junkie I was very disheartened by the field of candidates and the direction of the Republican Party. By way of example, being very pro-life, I was very disheartened by the early apparent establishment push for Rudi Giuliani, and as a person with common sense, I was disheartened that the majority of our candidates apparently believed in man-made global warming. My faith in the “establishment” of the Republican Party was pretty close to an all time low. Deeper than just frustration, it was a real feeling of betrayal.

Then I found Ron Paul. What attracted me to his campaign was his unwavering call for freedom, and adherence to the Constitution. His focus on these two themes appeared radical yet classical, genuine and not political, refreshingly patriotic and anti-establishment. As to his stance on the issues, there was much to like:

-          Not only was he pro-life, he had repeatedly introduced very solid pro-life legislation.

-          He was strong on the 10^th amendment and reducing the size of the federal government

-          He was so strong on spending and taxes, it was a little bit scary

-          He was strong on ed choice

-          He was strong on the right to bear arms

 

When I say a bit scary as to spending and taxes, I mean it. I didn’t really believe we could have zero income tax. I didn’t really believe we could reduce spending to the degree he was talking about. But, I also believed that if someone that zealous about spending and taxes ever got into the White House, after compromise with the house and senate, they may actually be able to reduce spending to appropriate and realistic levels. With the rest of the field, actually reducing spending and the size of government at all seemed unlikely, earmarks was about as far as anyone else seemed willing to go. His unrealistic passion was more appealing to me than what I saw as lip service from many of the others. After all, the second best fiscal guy in the field had created state run healthcare with individual mandates.

There were some issues not to like as well.

-          Immigration

-          Some of the social issues

-          Legalization of drugs

-          I’m sure my more focused RS friends can ad exponentially to this list, but my point is only that I never fully embraced every position RP took.

There were also some issues that were impossible to accept on faith, but were plausible enough to at least reserve judgment on.

-          Complete withdraw from the UN, and perhaps other treaties

-          Returning to a Gold Standard

-          Doing away completely with the Federal Reserve

-          Bringing all of our troops home immediately, and closing our bases around the world

 

Avoiding an in-depth analysis of each issue, suffice it to say that this last set of policy positions all contain appealing elements in a simple world, In fact I’m still pretty OK with bugging out of the U.N. Yet, all of these issues also all have a degree of complexity that makes them unrealistic at best and foolhardy at worst. The point here is that I believe the typical RP supporter at least recognizes that their educators, the media, and a majority of politicians, lie to them on a regular basis. The apparent a-political nature and rhetoric of Ron Paul can break through that reflexive distrust. A RP supporter begins to trust him and becomes more open to consider the plausibility of some of his more complex and severe positions. It doesn’t make them stupid because they believe we could return to the gold standard, or do away with the Federal Reserve. These are complex subjects.

 

Now, fast forward to today and my biggest disappointment in Ron Paul is that he would even consider running for President again. In that statement is my recognition that:

 

1.       He will never win the nomination, and he will never win a general election as an independent or libertarian.

2.       I recognize many of his policy positions as foolhardy. 

3.       His running can have a damaging affect on the party, and on the conservative movement.

4.       My ego still fights to justify my good opinion of him.  

 

 

Understanding number 4 is critical in uniting RP supporters with mainstream conservatism. We must recognize that passionate RP supporters are potentially new to politics, they don’t trust anyone for good reason, and their egos are now attached to their opinion of RP. While my opinion of RP has changed in that I see his weaknesses, his bad policy positions, and I do not want him for President, I still respect him for his convictions and accomplishments, and I want to continue to respect him. So his failings do not bother me even though I now recognize them, nearly as much as the fact that he may run again. If he does run, I believe it will be knowing full well that that he can do no good for the conservative movement as a candidate. I will lose respect for him, and my ego will take a blow for respecting him in the first place.

All that being preface – how does it relate to the title that “Ron Paul Deserves Credit” and that “His Supporters Deserve Time.” As to the first, I think that RS’ers should not go so overboard in criticizing Ron Paul that they deny his contributions. Considering my thought process, coming to support RP was as much about being driven away from the party standard bearer’s as it was being drawn to RP. It was the 2008 version of the Mitch Daniel’s truce (as an aside, beautifully rebutted by Rush yesterday), which seemed to be coming from all corners. So when people on RS already frustrated by RP and already aware of his policy problems came at him so harshly, it was easy to put them in the “neo-con” category and write them off. The blocking out of legitimate criticism will be more pronounced if RP is given zero credit. Among other things;

Ron Paul should be given some credit for;

The tea party movement, and thus the current ascendency of the conservative movement,

Bringing more youth and e-savvy youth into the conservative movement,

Inspiring creative and successful fund raising ideas.

The fact is that I am not the only one who purchased the Federalist Papers and started thinking more about the Constitution many months before Rick Santelli’s rant. Ron Paul was talking about the Constitution before it was cool to talk about the Constitution. He prepared a large base of people for the coming of the tea party movement. I wouldn’t exactly call him John the Baptist, but his “Liberty Campaign” unquestionably set the stage for the tea party.

The fact is that Ron Paul somehow dragged young people away from the leftist education machine they had been required to live in for 12 to 16 years and gave them to the Republican Party. To actually have enough Republican’s with the tech savvy to game the internet to win every straw poll, is an accomplishment.

The fact is that the money bomb, the LLC form of fundraising, and some the ads made by Paul supporters in their basements were some of the best and most original political messaging tools since Willie Horton.

Yet I am praying RP has the sense not to muck things up by running again, for all the reasons I stated above.

But I am also praying we don’t have to alienate and fight with those on our own side for a year and a half. And I believe many of them are like I was. Conservatives. There may be a few whose reason-d’être is anti-war, or pro-legalization, but I doubt they make more than 10%-15%. Telling a RP supporter he is just an antiwar leftist is like telling a Tea Party member he’s Astroturf. It’s just not true, and as soon as we start telling obvious lies, then we lose credibility for the less obvious truths that RP supporters need to learn. Same goes for lumping all Ron Paul supporters together as one homogenous group of stupid people deserving of hate and derision. “All RP supporters are stupid because they think all non RP supporters are neo-cons.” It’s like the two wrongs make a right theory and it simply isn’t productive.

I am not necessarily suggesting a friendly approach to RP. Harsh may be necessary. But, let’s be honest about what he has done. Let’s remember that people don’t trust the establishment for good reason, they are excited about politics perhaps for the first time, and the message of freedom and the Constitution is resonating with them.

If we beat them down, if we deny any positive impact of RP, they are going to react badly and possibly be even more entrenched in their wrong-thinking. If on the other hand, we give them just a little bit of credit by acknowledging RP’s contributions, acknowledging their passion for conservative values, and give them a little bit of time by saying – hey we know your passionate, but if you wanna stick around you’ve just got to take it easy, then they might just come around a lot quicker.

For the RP supporters reading this, you’ve got to understand what you are walking into here at RS. This is a community of by and large very conservative individuals. Most of them do not support RP and for good reasons other than being a neo-con. Many of them have experienced unreasonable knee-jerk attacks from RP supporters who think anyone who doesn’t love RP is the antichrist. Nearly all of them have also heard every form of substantive argument in favor or RP, and they are not going to change their minds – for good reason. So if you get a defensive response, consider this history. If you are new, consider that you are a guest here. You don’t get come into someone’s home for the first time, put your feet on the coffee table, pick your nose, and fart. Watch for a little while, read for a little while. Three simple rules could save you a lot of headache, perhaps allow you to get something positive out of RS, and maybe even give something positive back.

1.       If you like RP primarily because he wants to legalize pot and/or because of he’s dead on that “blowback” caused 9/11, then you really don’t belong here. Go sell RP to the kos kids or huffpo.

 

2.       Never assume anything else about a writer at RS who doesn’t like RP, other than that they don’t like RP.

3.       Understand to an absolute certainty that coming on RS and promoting RP in an aggressive manner WILL NOT benefit RP’s chances of becoming a presidential nominee in any way. It will have the opposite effect.

A corollary to # 2 is that promoting RP in non-aggressive respectful way will also not improve RP’s chances of becoming the nominee, but you might be able to stick around and learn something.

 

A second corollary is that keeping quiet and reading diaries and comments related to what you think you want to say may save you the time of having to say it in the first place, having the dual benefits of learning something without having to look foolish while doing so.

Erick took a side today on the CPAC, GOP Proud issue. He didn’t do so until today, because he wanted to give GOP Proud the benefit of the doubt. Certainly an admirable, conservative, and thoughtful approach. The problem is that history should make clear, those who seek to legitimize deviancy do not do so honorably. Ostensibly, they only want equality, fairness, or justice. Truly, they want to destroy the standard.

While Erick’s statement is the right thing to do, I believe he should ask if attending CPAC at all is a victory for deviancy? Next year maybe they will do things differently …. Really, how many times has deviancy knocked the door off its hinges after first just getting its foot in? If I were making the decision, I would slam the door hard and slam it now. CPAC may only survive if it learns this lesson the hard way.

To see the destruction you have to look at institutions that have already been through the cycle. Take for instance the Catholic Church. In the 60’s the church allowed men who had homosexual “inclinations” to serve in the priesthood. Seemed reasonable, after all, the priest would be celibate and overcoming the homosexual inclination should be no different than overcoming the heterosexual condition. It was a bad decision. You see, they didn’t just want to be priests; they wanted to destroy the priesthood. Within a short period of time whole seminaries and their leadership’s were taken over by a gay culture not at all interested in the Church’s teaching on celibacy. Some seminaries could aptly be compared to bathhouses. So what do think happened to the heterosexual priests? Well, at first they were simply chased out of those seminaries if they wouldn’t participate in the culture. But as the hierarchy was built up, in these seminaries they were prevented from even starting.  Pious young men filled with the Holy Spirit and faithful to Church teaching were turned away because “they had psychological problems, or they were repressed” if they agreed with church teaching on sexual morality. The ranks of priests were thinned, and many who remained had gone through their training living a lifestyle devoid of sexual restraint. Surprise, surprise they started abusing their parishioners.

The widespread public sentiment was that the problem was not allowing priests to marry. That would be the solution. That would have destroyed the priesthood. Luckily the Catholic Church is one institution that is not governed by public opinion and so the priesthood survives, weakened for sure, but alive and improving every day since the Church’s misguided tolerance has been largely corrected.

But look at another Church, not so lucky. The United Church of Christ. My grandparents church, my mother’s church, and my church as a child. Now Barack Obama’s Church before he stopped going to church. In the 1990’s they began with all inclusive language changes. In this century they have embraced a goal of promoting gay marriage, they approve of abortion on demand, and their by-laws have been altered to make it so that they don’t really believe in anything with conviction. My mother has tried to fight the changes. She and the other “old –timers” were all accused of the same bigotry and hatred that GOP Proud now accuses conservatives of. The rules were secretly changed to prevent votes; the foundational savings of many generations were raided to fund the new ideology. You can go to that Church now on any given weekend, and hear an avowed “secular humanist” do the bible readings.

Look at the history of this movement. Homosexuality was not a psychological condition, they lobbied it was normal, it was genetic. Despite the facts that nearly every instance of sexual deviancy could be traced to abuse or other deviancy within the home, we said OK – it must be genetic.

Now it’s Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, and Transgender persona’s which we must accept as normal. They haven’t succeeded with normalizing pedophilia yet, but they keep trying. We wondered how one has a bi-sexual gene, or a transgender gene. So the “gene” argument has been largely abandoned for these other issues, it’s all about tolerance. Ok we said, we all want to be tolerant. Now a confused 12 year old boy, who wants to wear a dress, will have a hard time finding a therapist who can address whatever the underlying issues may be. If his parents are “enlightened,” he will be a she before its 13^th birthday.

It is discrimination, intolerance, and bigotry if we can’t marry they said. We’ll wait a minute, we say, that’s not discrimination. No one is preventing you from getting married, you don’t want to get married, you want to change what being married means? But some have already said we don’t want to be bigots, we are tolerant – go ahead and get married. More will follow, and the push will not stop, ever.

They will win, unless our strategy changes. The topic came up recently on a post as to how many schools have implemented Planned Parenthoods’ sex education program. The one endorsed by Obama. The one where first graders must learn all about the different types of sexuality and sexual positions and learn that “girls don’t have to have babies if they don’t want to.” I don’t know how many schools teach this, but they all will, unless we change our strategy.

Maybe we thought we were being tolerant when we allowed some of this to start. Maybe we just didn’t want to be branded. But we now live in a country where entire charitable organizations helping thousands of women, children, and families have been forced to shut their doors in the name of tolerance. We live in a country where real people every day are seriously harmed in the name of tolerance. We don’t think we’ve gone far enough to approve of pedophilia in the name of tolerance, but the Planned Parenthood sting has just demonstrated hundreds of millions of our tax dollars going to an organization willing to facilitate the child sex-slave business, and Congressmen and women are defending them.

Deviancy is deviancy and it seeks to destroy whatever standard it deviates from, and then to encourage further and further deviancy. We don’t have to hate those with deviant tendencies. We don’t have to exclude those with deviant tendencies. We all have our own defects and deviancies. That is the nature of man. The difference is that we do not seek to glorify our defects and force others to adopt them as righteous. That is the nature of evil. And it will not change its nature,  no matter how gracious we are or how often we give it the benefit of the doubt.

We don’t seek perfect adherence with our conservative values, religious beliefs, or lifestyles. That is contrary to the free will of men and women.  But we also don’t sponsor those who directly advocate against those values, for that is servile and scraping and against the natural law.

We should know this by now, yet, but for GOP Proud’s going off script and stating their true feelings a bit too early, many of us would have been content to just let this little issue slide. 

Many of us are saying, no – we’d better not focus on these divisive issues, the economy is more important. Give the deviants another 4 years to push their agenda. It won’t be my little girl demonstrating proper fellatio techniques in front of the class, so I am going to focus on fiscal issues so my little girl can watch a 55 inch 3d TV next year.

We’ll clean up CPAC next year…

I am trying to craft a timeline of proofs of PP’s most significant wrongdoing to provide others with ammunition so that this latest sin is their last. I just only have so much time, less than I’ve spent already actually. So if you know I am missing anything major, or have other ideas to improve the document, please post a comment.

DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD

NOW!!!

 

Planned Parenthood trots out the same two arguments it always does when it gets caught.

1.       These are isolated rouge employees and not official policy of Planned Parenthood, or a systemic problem.

 

2.       We don’t use tax dollars for abortion; we use tax dollars for the other medical care and the information and services we provide, which women might not be able to receive if it weren’t for us.

 

 

Please take a minute to review the following and decide for yourself if Planned Parenthood has a few rouge employees, or a systemic concerted effort to promote abortion at all cost, even when it means lying, covering up rape and abuse, supporting racists seeking the deaths of black babies, and now facilitating the sexual slavery of children.

The video and audio evidence described in the following summary of Planned Parenthood’s long history of “isolated incidents” can be found at   http://exposeplannedparenthood.com/.  

January, 2011: Planned Parenthood manager in NJ, conspires with investigators posing as sex traffickers managing 14-15 year old sex slaves. The manager advises on how to get abortions for the minor sex slaves, how to lie about their age, how to circumvent reporting requirements, and even how to use the girls in the sex trade while they are recovering. Manager also agrees to help get past the nosey nurse practitioner in exchange for bribes. Manager also provides a readymade handout listing another abortion provider who doesnt follow reporting guidelines.

January, 2011: A second Planned Parenthood manager, this one in Virginia also conspires with investigators posing as sex traffickers to acquire abortions for underage sex slaves.

2010: Several Planned Parenthoods accept financial donations specifically designated to abort black babies because the caller wanted to reduce the number of black people. Some PP employees agreed with that purpose, none expressed outrage or refused the donations.

September 2009: Multiple Planned Parenthood employees and doctors tell numerous lies to sell abortions to undercover investigators. They lie about when the heart starts to beat, about the relative complications of abortion versus having the baby, about pro-life materials being “Fake” and pressure the investigators to have their abortions now, when it more safe and less costly.

June 24, 2008: A Bloomington Indiana Planned Parenthood employee coaches an investigator posing as 13 year old girl impregnated by 31 year old man to lie about the father’s age, and cover up felony statutory rape. Discovery of statutory rape must be reported in Indiana.

June 24, 2008: The scenario is duplicated in Indianapolis where two Planned Parenthood employees coach an investigator posing as 13 year old girl impregnated by 31 year old man to cover up felony statutory rape and get an abortion in a state that doesn’t have parental consent laws.  

July 7, 2008: The scenario is duplicated in Arizona where a Planned Parenthood employee coaches an investigator posing as 15 year old girl impregnated by 27 year old man to cover up felony statutory rape and get around parental consent laws. Discovery of statutory rape must be reported in Arizona.

1998 – 2009: Six lawsuits filed against Planned Parenthood for failing to report rape and sexual abuse of minors, allowing the rapist to continue to abuse the children. The cases were in Santa Clara CA, San Francisco CA, Phoenix AR, West Hartford CT, 2 in Cincinnati OH.

 

2.       We don’t use tax dollars for abortion; we use tax dollars for the other medical care and the information and services we provide, which women might not be able to receive if it weren’t for us.

 

On its face this argument has a logical appeal, but one that is quickly disproved upon reflection.  The operation of every household, company, organization, and country requires money to cover its expenses and provide it’s services. Any money it receives assists in every aspect of its operations, no matter what particular item the money is spent on. The more money it has, the more services it can provide.

Assume that a given Planned Parenthood needs $100.00 to stay in business. It cost $20.00 to pay the rent and utilities, it costs $20.00 to perform non abortion services, it cost $20.00 to cover website advertising and political donations, and it costs $40.00 to perform abortion services. The PP brings in $60.00 and receives $40.00 from us, the taxpayers through the US Government. It uses the $40.00 from us to pay for rent and non-abortion services. It uses the $60.00 it makes to cover the other expenses, including abortions.

Quite simply, in the example, PP could not stay in business except for the money it gets from the government.  So the money, no matter what it is spent on – results in and supports the abortion business. It is also not an argument that they could still provide abortions; they would simply cost more if the government were not financing Planned Parenthood.  In fact this argument disproves the whole. If the price of abortions were higher, fewer women would get them (supply and demand) and the argument that federal dollars serve to lower the price of abortions, is an admission that our tax dollars result in more abortions.

BUT with Planned Parenthood it goes much deeper than the logical flaws in the argument.

Planned Parenthood performs more abortions than any other organization in the world. Abortion is their most profitable service and their largest source of income. Planned Parenthood may not spend federal dollars on actual abortions, but they certainly spend federal dollars on their marketing campaign to promote abortions at the earliest stages of childhood. And they spend federal dollars electing pro-abortion politicians.

As to the latter, with a combined total of over $1,000,000.00, Planned Parenthood was the largest pro-choice donor to federal candidates and committees,  and the largest pro-choice spender on lobbyists.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q15

As to former, in 2008 now President Obama gave a speech to Planned Parenthood where he stated his support for “providing medically accurate and age-appropriate sex education and professional training in our communities across the country.” This language is taken directly from Planned Parenthood materials and can be found on their website. The language is not as ambiguous as it sounds, but it is further clarified with some detail in a section called “What children need to know and when they need to know it”:

 

Here is some of what they believe children less than 5 years old need to know, and you can safely assume it only gets worse from there:

§  touching their sex organs for pleasure is normal

§  a woman does not have to have a baby unless she wants to

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/parents/human-sexuality-what-children-need-know-when-they-need-know-it-4421.htm

So, while taxpayer dollars may not fund the actual abortion, there is no prohibition against those dollars going back to politicians like Barak Obama who can then advocate that your children (in the schools you also pay for with your tax dollars) can begin accepting abortion indoctrination at age 5. Nor is there any prohibition against Planned Parenthood spending those tax dollars on developing and implementing such programs to indoctrinate your 5 year old into the idea that casual sex is normal and healthy and the consequences of casual sex can be easily elimated.

What can be done?

Both sides of the isle are paying lip service to the need to cut spending. The Republican’s actually promised to cut $100 billion from the budget, but haven’t yet come up with $100 billion to cut. Suggest a good place where they can cut a few hundred million.

Will your representative justify continuing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars of our money into an organization that is willing to support (among other evils) the sexual slavery of 13 and 14 year old girls? Just so it can make a buck for aborting their babies?

Will your local and national media outlets ignore the story, or recite the PP talking points?

If they refuse to vote to defund Planned Parenthood, or refuse to cover the story, you might ask your them if they have daughters. You might also ask them at what point, they themselves become complicit in the exploitation of young girls. You might ask them –

What would it actually take for them to stop looking the other way?

If you’re willing to take that step, why not ask the same questions of the companies you support with purchases who also support Planned Parenthood, such as Nike, Marriot, and ebay? Or the charities that you donate to who then support Planned Parenthood, like the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, The Girl Scouts, Rotary International, and the Ronald McDonald house?

http://www.fightpp.org/  (complete lists available)

Defund Planned Parenthood Now.

Dear Congressman,

                  I am just a guy from Ohio who thinks you should reconsider running for President.  I have three reasons for this, other than the obvious that I think you would make a good president, and that you could win.

1.       Right now, you more than anyone else have the qualities to unite the factions necessary for a conservative Republican victory in 2012.

2.       You have the ability to maintain and increase the momentum of the tea party movement.

3.       You may be able to get the support of Sarah Palin.

 

 

As to the first, this is not simply a statement of the obvious, or my personal opinion, but something I noticed as somewhat of a phenomenon on Redstate.com over the last few months. Redstate contributors and commenters represent a microcosm of the party, with perhaps a slightly more conservative bent than the party as a whole. It is also home to a significant number of precinct committeemen. So discussions of potential candidates often become passionate and argumentative. But in post after post your name seemed to clearly be a consensus favorite.  Not only were you the choice of more commenters than the other candidates, but in posts requesting top 3 choices, you were one of the the top 3 in an overwhelming majority of  comments.

 

The reason is simply I think. You represent well the 3 legged stool of a strong Republican coalition. Small government / fiscal responsibility, pro-life / social conservative, strong national defense. There is also an overwhelming sense that you have integrity in your convictions. Perhaps, especially in 2012 something that should be considered a 4^th leg of the stool, given the public’s frustration with the lack of integrity on both sides of the isle. Perhaps more importantly, there are no strong negatives except name recognition and the House of Representatives being a weak stepping point to the presidency.

 

So, when Mitch Daniels is thrown out as a name, it is clear he has ruined himself with many pro-lifers by his own comments. Obviously Giuliani has the same problem. Romney evokes groans as not only untrustworthy as to his conservatism, but as the architect of mini-Obamacare.  Huckabee, not conservative enough on fiscal issues. Gingrich, Pawlenty, and a host of others are seen a fair weather conservatives on varying issues with some liberal tendencies at heart. Palin is liked by most and very passionately supported by many, but the consensus of the less rabid is that she cannot win in the general.  The only other candidates who seem to have a similar common appeal, are even less well known, less experienced or have other negatives that would be problematic in the general. Barbour, Christie, West, et al. So while not everyone has you as their first choice, almost nobody has bad things to say because you do not conflict with any aspect of conservatism. That is precisely the unification we must have to win in the general.

 

Does a pro-lifer eventually vote for Daniels or Rudi or Romney? Probably. Does a fiscal conservative eventually vote for someone like Huckabee? Probably.  But do they donate? Probably not. Do they walk the streets, make calls, write to editors, and show up at rallies? Probably not. Which leads to my second point.

 

Besides all the misinformation the media presents about the Tea Party movement, I think people are also misinformed about the nature of the vast majority of tea partiers. Specifically, because the attacks from the left that motivated the tea party movement have been regarding size of government / fiscal issues, the assumption is that the tea party represents merely the “fiscal” leg of the stool. Personally, my experience is that Tea Partiers represent all 3 legs by a large majority. So there are incorrect assumptions that for instance a pro-abortion or merely weak pro-life candidate will be just fine with tea partiers as long as they are fiscally responsible. Furthermore, both the fiscal conservatives and the pro-lifers in the tea party movement have been told to take a backseat to appease “moderates” for so long that their fragile loyalty to the party could easily be shattered by some compromise candidate. At worst we could see an independent run by a Ron Paul or a Alan Keyes type dividing conservatives even more so than in 2008. At best, millions of highly active voters will suddenly cease to be active. In either sense, if the tea party is forced to abandon pro-iife issues, or pro-freedom issues, or other issues foundational to conservatives – they could lose motivation, fracture and ultimately succumb to the marginalization the media has been frantically trying to impose on them. If that happens, we, as Republicans are likely to be sent back into the wilderness.

 

Conservatives are the majority in the United States of America. Unfortunately, they are under constant attack by the media, the entertainment industry, both institutions of primary and higher education, and a ruling culture in Washington DC that disdains them at worst and patronizes them at best. Yet against those odds, they rose up and in less than 1 year, became the greatest novel political force since the Sons of Liberty. It is cliché, but perhaps more true now than in the last 100 years – this election is about much more than this election. And those, like yourself, uniquely qualified to hold together, motivate, and lead the conservative movement, should not only embrace the duty to do so, but should respect the potentially fleeting opportunity that is present, right now.

 

Finally, I fall in the camp that would be just as happy to see Sarah Palin as president, but that does not believe she is capable of winning. Yet I take Sarah Palin at her word, when she repeatedly promises that her decision to run will be based on what is best for the country. If she is honest when she says that, and if she is honest with herself about her prospects of winning, then she will embrace her role, not as President (at least not yet), but as kingmaker.  She likely cannot and likely will not attempt to make a King out of most others currently in the field. But I believe she could embrace supporting you, and if she did at the right time, so could all of her devotees.

 

Those are my thoughts; I thank you for considering them.

 

As a lawyer who does plaintiffs work, tort reform has never rung true with me, either as something as necessary as people claim it is, or as something that actually produces anywhere near the savings people think it will. Ultimately, I think there are some things that could be tweaked to improve the system including special courts for expert intensive cases (med. Mal., bad drug, etc.), and modest penalties for those suits that are truly frivolous.

I also know that the pendulum swings both ways. Tort reform has already occurred at the state level in many states to varying degrees. The public has been indoctrinated for a long time into the belief that plaintiffs and their lawyers are more likely to be guilty of greed, than the defendants are guilty of some tort or another.  The natural result is lower damages awarded and more defense verdicts. The legal result in some cases is tort reform eliminating representation for whole classes of plaintiffs. In either event, insurance companies become emboldened to deny more claims, or lowball more claims. Professionals like Doctors and Dentists become less careful in their practices. And when the plaintiff’s lawyer cannot afford the risk, people are wronged with no remedy. Ultimately this happens to enough people that public perception turns again against the insurers and the sloppy professionals, and a correction occurs.

However, the point of this post  is Obama’s referefnce in the SOTU speech that he was willing to work with republicans on tort reform. It will be interesting to see if the democrats supposed loyalty to the trial lawyers holds firm, or if Obama was serious in his offering of tort reform. My guess is that trial lawyers will ultimately lose out if Obamacare remains intact.

Think about it. What do we think will happen with Obamacare? Doctors will be paid less, so there will be less of them, and they will be even less able to afford malpractice insurance. Care will become more difficult to get, because more people will seek services for which there are less providers. Care will have to be rationed, and care that is not rationed will be of lower quality.

Think of the European horror stories of the guy in the waiting room bleeding out after 24 hours without a doctor ever seeing him. That would be a pretty obvious med-mal case in America. But if the government drives the quality of care down and doesn’t adjust people’s right to a remedy then the cost of malpractice insurance really will become cost-prohibitive (like insuring homes on coastlines that get battered by hurricanes every 3-5 years) because committing malpractice as we now understand it would be almost unavoidable.

So the government will be left with one of two choices. A. Use taxpayers’ dollars to remedy malpractice through government subsidized malpractice insurance, or B. Implement draconian “tort reform” that prevents individuals from recovering for malpractice caused injuries. Since we already know that every cost estimate of Obama care is grossly under-estimated, it will be very tempting to forget the trial lawyers (and of course the patients) and make recovery almost impossible. Which of course will cycle back into making doctors less accountable and more likely to commit malpractice.

So, the Pyrrhic victory for conservatives is tort reform that allows a Doctor to ampute the wrong limb with no fear of repercussion, and a lot of double amputees with no hope of recovery. I would certainly think about it when considering Obama’s newfound willingness to enact tort-reform.

In response to my explanation of why Mitch Daniels cannot be rehabilitated in the eyes of strong pro-lifers, and why he should not be considered for 2012 after commenting that “the next president would need to call a truce on social issues” (and refusing to state whether he would re-instate the Mexico City policy) I was asked here what my list of priorities would be for the next Republican President, both generally and as applied to pro-life policy.

Of course any answer is bigger than a comment, or even a single diary, and takes more than the time I have to answer it. So here is my current summary of priorities for the next Republican President. It is mostly in order of importance, with importance as defined by a mixture of what things come first sequentially, what is most pressing in terms of need, and what is most pressing morally. But a majority of the items require constant and multidirectional attention from a Chief Executive, so that sequence is a little vauge. A president never has the luxury of sole focus on only 1 agenda item. For example, you can clearly see my major pro-life priority is bolded near the bottom. It is near the bottom, because 1) it should not be first if the economy is still reeling, 2) it cannot be accomplished without the groundwork being laid. But pro-life activity would be constant which I will touch on at the end.

PRIORITIES

1.       Have a coherent conservative philosophy, goals and agenda.

2.       Genuine transparency and honest dialogue with the people from the outset.

a.       1 and 2 should include a specific method for maintaining humility and avoiding the transformation lure of the Washington Culture

3.       Fill the executive branch with competent individuals who support the philosophy, goals, and agenda, or at least understand their marching orders and are willing to carry them out.

4.       Incentivize economic growth through tax, de-regulation, and other efforts consistent with free market principles.  

5.       Reduce the size, cost, and scope of all non-military government activity.

                                                                           i.      Simplistic in terms of exceptions. For example there may be other areas where reduction is not wise, and there may be areas of military spending that need to be cut. Eg. I would personally rather see an operational missile defense system than the maintence of so many troops overseas.

                                                                         ii.      Also simplistic in terms of specific deficit reduction. I don’t feel qualified to know what goals are really attainable, but also don’t mean to be soft on the issue. I would assume a balanced budget is feasible at some point during the next presidency, but I cannot cogently argue the point one way or the other.

                                                                        iii.      Another example would be drastic cuts in education funding, but at the same time a reasonable incentive to the states for school choice for a limited amount of time as a reasonable remediation for decades of propping up the public schools.

b.      Subsection: Return responsibility to the states and the people whenever reasonably possible.

6.       De-fund, shut down, or otherwise dismantle government activity in areas not consistent with conservative principles.

7.       De-fund, shut down, or otherwise dismantle government participation in international organizations that promote policy not consistent with conservative principles.

8.       Promote conservative principles in all areas by means that do not conflict with other conservative principles.

a.       As an example, the federal government might promote abstinence only education in some ways, but it would not attempt to outlaw the teaching of contraception in contra to the State’s right to determine educational content.  

9.       Repeal health care bill in toto. If feasible, reform health care only in ways consistent with other conservative principles.

10.   Reform Energy Policy opening all reasonable resource areas for exploration and extraction, elimination of any policy, cost, treaty, trip, tax, etc. that is justified by a concern for man made global warming except to the extent necessary to properly inform the public of the truth of global warming.

11.   Seek to statutorily challenge the premise of Roe v. Wade and the legality of abortion, by making law which defines the term “person” as used in the 5^th and 14^th amendments due process clauses as including both born and unborn persons, from the moment of conception.

12.   Secure our Southern borders / root out and deport on a national level all illegal immigrants with gang affiliation and/or who have committed a crime of violence while in the United States.

13.   Reform Soc. Sec./Med. to make solvent or at least significant strides towards solvency.

 

So, besides the golden ring stated in # 11, pro-life activity would fit into the above in parts 1-9 by:

-          Bully Pulpit: Being fearless and able to articulate pro-life principles as a part of a governing policy.

o   The fear is the alienation of the average woman who may lean pro-choice, or who may have had an abortion, or known someone who has. The answer is that we don’t demonize these people. We don’t demonize anyone, but we do lay blame and seek to remove the influence of those who promote abortion, those who ignore the harm it causes to the women who have them, those who lie about what the unborn person experiences to convince people it are OK. We don’t avoid the issue, or cover it with a tacit half apologetic one liner to the effect that we are pro-life but certainly understand the differing views on the issue.

o   The answer is also to remove govt. obstacles to adoption where possible and other policy/communication that ameliorates the burden of carrying a baby to term while at the same time exposing the lie that having an abortion is less of a burden than having a baby.

-          Appointing pro-life individuals in all/most positions

-          Removing all federal funding not only for abortions themselves, but organizations that provide abortions, and organizations that promote abortion, and organizations that donate to organizations that do the above.

-          Remove affiliation or funding for international organizations that do the above.

-          Reverse polices on stem cell research, etc.

 

Of course there is tons more, but the point is there is a lot to be done on the pro-life front that can be done concurrently with fixing the economy, or the deficit. Nothing, or very little can be done if there is a legitimate “truce” on social issues. As stated in the source diary, maintaining a truce, not talking about abortion, making it seem a third rail –  is the left’s strategy. To call a truce is to surrender. Not to mention that a truce is not possible because a strategy based entirely on deception has no qualms about violating some politically expedient truce. Just like Obama had no qualms signing a meaningless oath not to fund abortion in the new health care law, while providing billions in funding for “family health services,” or whatever the line item was.

DISCLAIMER:

*Some terms in this post are militaristic in nature, words that could be used to describe actual physical battle with soldiers, but can also be used metaphorically in reference to battles that are not actual physical battles, but are merely political battles without the intent of physical harm. Except where the actual US Military is being discussed, these terms should be understood as the non-physical metaphorical type. If you have been, are now, or may become at any time in the future, a crazy person, please interpret these words as a call to engage in non-threatening letter campaign to your elected officials written on the inside cover of Hallmark Cards that feature puppies on front cover.  

 

 

Reading Aces take on the 2012 field Here; I was pleased that it seems, while still very early, a type of Redstate consensus or majority forming around Mike Pence as a unifying conservative with the major bases covered, despite some weaknesses.

But then I got into the long thread of the Mitch Daniels supporters and a reply turned into a diary. I like Mitch Daniels. He has accomplished much in Indiana. In some ways, I wish things could be different. But they can’t.

So I make this plea to the Daniel’s supporters that they do two things 1) do not ask pro-lifers to believe that Daniels is 100% pro-life, and 2) think long and hard about putting the party and the conservative movement in the position of asking pro-lifers to sacrifice for the greater good just one more time. I don’t vilify Daniels; I don’t vilify those who support Daniels, and I don’t assume that Mike Pence is the only answer merely because I think he could be one answer. It’s not about Pence or Daniels or any other candidate. It’s about what I believe pro-lifers can tolerate, and what they cannot. And it’s about the absolute necessity for the all hands on deck trend to continue into 2012.

It’s really very simple. 100% pro-lifers know that a 100% pro-lifer does not make the statement that Daniels made. To be 100% pro-life is to know the tactics of the abortion lobby. It is to understand that abortion is not legal because it was ever fairly and honestly debated. It is legal because of lies, fake statistics, emotivism,  and Orwellian twists of phrase.

But more importantly, abortion is legal because most of us simply don’t think about it. “It’s just tissue”, “I am personally pro-life but …” “Safe, legal, and rare”, “It’s such a divisive issue, let’s have a truce.” These words don’t mean “truce” they mean surrender – they are the language of the abortion lobby. They are words crafted by professional marketing firms to get you to not think about the facts on abortion.  

And most importantly, a 100% pro-lifer does not forget that a “Truce” for our side means 3000 innocent Americans are destroyed every day. Does anyone imagine a 100% pro-national defense conservative would OK a truce if 3000 troops were lost every day of the truce? Or a fiscal conservative would agree to a truce if it involved daily 1% tax increases during the period of “truce”.

Ultimately, It is much easier to believe that Romney (not that I do) has converted to being 100% pro-life than it is to believe Daniels is 100% pro-life. He is either a closeted pro-abort, or he is a squish who didn’t understand enough about being pro-life to understand the import of his statement. Either way, he has disqualified himself from my vote unless no viable option remains. And to argue the import of his statement is consistent with being 100% pro-life just makes him looks dishonest to boot. Perhaps you can argue that circumstances force a 100% fiscal conservative to still have to raise taxes occasionally. But in this arena, the act of spinning this statement just digs the hole deeper. A true conversion is the only thing that would even remotely have a chance to rehabilitate Daniels in the eyes of pro-lifers, and not in time for 2012.

Don’t assume that makes us any less conservative on issues of fiscal responsibility, small/local government, and strong national defense. It certainly does not in the case of most of the pro-lifers’ I know. Nor is it reasonable to assume we sacrifice the good for the perfect and are incapable of  biding our time, of being incremental when necessary, of not leading with the chin, of supporting the Rudi’s when in NY or the Scott Brown’s when in Mass. But it does mean we will not support a pro-abortion candidate, or someone who talks like one, in a national election unless there is no other viable option. And it is the worst of times to even come close to putting us in that position.

For a whole bunch of us, we are done buying into the squish’s abortion lite argument that only “moderates” can win in national elections, and that doing nothing is the “moderate” position when it comes to abortion.

We were the ones making the argument in 2008 that the party’s leftward slide might only be corrected by defeat and by a good dose of a socialist like Obama to re-awaken the conservative heart of our nation. Thinking hard about sitting it out, much like a stern parent might let their child spend that night in jail, even though it’s unpleasant for all involved, and even though it’s risky. We didn’t know that re-awakening would be called the tea party, but that’s what it ended up being.  

Pro-lifers’ weren’t the only ones. And pro-life wasn’t the only issue either. After all, McCain is a squish with a pretty decent pro-life record. It was not his weakest point by far. But perhaps it was easier to endure the thought of present loss for future gain for us because we have been doing it for so long, and because we knew that we were being misled. And because we knew that words like moderate, and truce, really mean surrender. We also had a lot of traitors to the movement that year. The establishment’s shameless Rudi promotion, supposed “pro-life Catholics” like Sean Humanity jumping on the bandwagon, Rick Warren hoping to trade his integrity for a seat at Obama’s table, Pat Robertson, etc.  In other words the pro-aborts were sinking their claws deep into our territory all the while we were being asked to maintain the truce.

To settle again, to appease, to buy the lie one more time – that we must accept the incremental fusion of the two party’s as a slow, steady, two man march off the left cliff, with only the justification that we must not be the first one off the cliff? It was simply too much to ask.

Many of us didn’t follow through with sitting it out, in large part because we acknowledged the gesture of Sarah Palin. In the end, most of us did what we could with a few weeks to go.  Sarah Palin reminded us that a conservative can in fact talk like a conservative without fear of not sounding like a moderate, and her part in what came next is no small thing. Barak Obama overstepped more than any of us could have imagined. He overstepped enough to bring, of all things, a CNBC moderator at the Chicago Board of Trade to boil over into a rant and call for a Boston tea party, Chicago style. It was a rant heard round the world, and the tea party was born.

Of course the tea party was and is centered on issues of freedom, fiscal responsibility, and small government. But that is not due to an absence of pro-lifers in the tea party, it is because government action under Obama was to those issues as China’s one-child policy is to pro-life policy. But that circumstantial focus on other issues cannot translate into pro-lifers declaring a truce on pro-life issues. To assume as much is absurd, and will cause problems 1000 times the size of CPAC’s rescinding of the don’t ask don’t tell policy.

Again it is very simple. WE KNOW THAT A 3000 BABIES ARE DESTROYED EVERY DAY THAT A “TRUCE” EXISTS. But it way beyond that. We sit in the aftermath of the biggest midterm election gains since WWII.  A true grassroots conservative movement has grown from zero to influencing nearly every election in the country in less than 2 years.  Majorities are once again identifying themselves as Republicans, as conservatives, and yes – as pro-life. The press has lost much of its power, and is imploding with ever more desperate and deranged attacks on conservatives, and of course Sarah Palin. Somehow mistakenly imaging her as the snakes head and hoping that if they can kill the head the snake will fall. All that is needed for further gains is for those in our party to maintain their principles, their integrity, try to do what they said they are going to do, and for God’s sake keep the heat on as true conservatives. The 3 legged kind. Not the 2 legged kind or the 1 legged kind.

So really, this is the time – right now – when we should be pressing hard – this is the time when pro-life squishes want to tell the biggest and most dedicated group of “single issue” voters, to settle for a truce on their issue?

Are you $#!@& kidding me!

Having just finshed “Ron Paul Stands With Totalitarianism” here on Redstate, my rebuttal reached diary size.

The premise of that diary was that Ron Paul is a complete and total embarrassment to the party as well as being a crazy totalitarianist becuase he was the only congressman not to vote yea on a resolution to honor Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, thereby apparently clearly the way for the allegation that:

Ron Paul has decided to make sure everyone knows that he is the only Member of Congress not opposed to brutal totalitarianism

At first, I thought, this post just seems pretty ridiculous. I admit I like Ron Paul. I also find him kooky,  an ineffective debater, disagree with him on many issues, and pray that he supports an electable candidate in 2012 versus attempting another doomed run at the White House.

But a hit piece on such a trivial issue? A hit piece because he failed to vote to congratulate a worthy winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, drawing the conclusion that he therefore supports not just totalitarianism, but brutal totalitarianism? To me the whole definition of the tinfoil hat crowd is or should be people who illogically believe something despite evidence to the contrary. Attempting to infer totalitarian support from the lack of support for a particular anti-totalitarian is about as tin hatish as it gets in my book.

At a second glance, I realized a potential reason why Ron Paul voted as he did. I have no actual idea why Ron Paul refused to vote for this particular gesture. But if I had to venture a guess, I would suggest that it had more to do with the award itself than winner of the award, and if any all the people wasting their time analyzing this haven’t addressed that possibility, then they are either stupid or intentionally avoiding the possibility to further the impact of the hit piece. If they are leaving it out for impact then they are dishonest, and yes, you can count me in for someone who ranks honesty higher on the character determination scale than kookiness.

If it isn’t obvious that the Nobel Prize has become a bastion of progressive self congratulation and propaganda with the prize going to Al Gore for promoting a wealth redistribution fraud on the grandest of all levels, or going to Barak Obama for his sheer potential to create peace, then I guess it will never become obvious. But I will suggest that this belief regarding the prize has been circulating for several decades amongst conservatives. It should also be rudimentary logic that any award recipient Congress takes the time to honor equally honors the award itself. Just because the Nobel committee might be seeking a little legitimacy after the Gore and Obama debacles of late, does not redeem nor legitimize the committee itself. I certainly would not condemn anyone who refuses to prop up the Nobel Committee. In fact, I would rather all conservatives in Congress refuse to endorse the Nobel Commitee. How about an amendment to congratulate Liu Xiaobo for what he did versus the award he won? My guess is Ron Paul wouldn’t be opposed to that.

Then on third glance, my ire got up on a slightly different tack, which is that no matter how much Ron Paul derangement syndrome one may have, it should be remembered that Ron Paul’s rise in the 2008 primaries was the pre-cursor to the tea party. We are going to have arguments, some heated and some not about those in our party. But it is snide and petty to waste time with ridiculous hit pieces on a man who has, despite his flaws, contributed greatly to where we now find ourselves. I had the very same feeling reading the recent hit piece on Sarah Palin’s Alaska found in the Weekly Standard. Why in the world are they wasting their time going after someone who has just done so much for the party and for conservatism, based on her stupid TV show?

So ultimately, I guess I am calling for a moratorium on hit pieces of helpful but controversial conservatives, especially based on trivialities. I am not saying if you cant say anything nice, dont say anything at all, but attacking Ron Paul for a vote this trivial, or discerning Sarah Palin can not win a nationwide election becuase Bristol is a bad dancer, don’t seem to get us anywhere but a 200-300 comments filled with ad-hominen attack. 

It would seem more productive towards our stated goals of conservative victories to figure out how to assimilate the Ron Paul republicans, the Sarah Palin Republicans, the Newt Gigrich Republicans, the Mike Pence Republicans, the Bobby Jindal Republicans, and all the rest into our common conservative beliefs, and then do the heavy lifting and arguinng on the ideas that we diverge on, and the truly salient skill sets of the candiates. Thinking of more creative and personally demeaning ways to call each other Ronulans and Neocons just doesn’t get us anywhere.