And some blacks are brainwashed into voting for Democrats. See how far a white Republican candidate gets with either of those last two statements.

Herman Cain as a the Republican Nominee for President presents opportunities that we may never have again.

1. He is unabashed at speaking straight to the heart of social conservatism.
2. Yet he is best known for his fiscal strength.
3. Never have so many from all sides of the spectrum yearned for a non-politician in the White-House – and he is a non-politician.
4. He is a black Republican
5. His opponent is a black Democrat

A few months ago, I made the comment that “fiscal only” conservatives only have the luxury of jettisoning the social conservatives, because the social conservatives had gone before them and made the Country safe from tyrants and despots. Thus allowing us all the luxury of having more concern for the cost of fuel to heat our McMansions, than whether or not babies were being slaughtered. Those making the opposite point could not grasp my meaning. They assumed a free Republic sprung naturally from Reagonomics I guess. I don’t blame them. The left has framed the definition of Social conservatism for decades as a meaningless battle to dent the abortion rates and hate gay people.

It is practically impossible to explain to someone who doesn’t understand that the founders defined our freedoms as those given to us by our creator. Nor do they understand that the breadth and depth of our creator is bigger than those “divisive” social issues. Truth, justice, property rights, honoring those who have gone before, selflessness, restraint from violence, fairplay, and logic are all properly tenants of social conservatism.

The liberal mindset instead deals with personal desire, emotive reasoning, and relativism at every level of thought and action.  Without social conservatism there is no basis to explain why something is right and something is wrong.  It’s Ok to give your buddy $500,000,000 in taxpayer dollars for his failed company as long as he gives the proper kickback. It’s OK to totally lie about the outcomes of socialized medicine – as long as government gets bigger. It’s Ok to intimidate people and companies and political opponents with veiled or not so veiled threats – because they don’t count if they don’t donate. If I’m not gonna get the vote of Tea Partiers anyway – what wrong with slandering them as terrorists? I’m Barack Obama – definitely not a social conservative who has to pay any attention to moral considerations. It is only by being devoid of any moral compass whatsoever (and a teleprompter) that Obama can pull off this crap with a straight face.

We have people gathering in every major city who believe that a communist type revolution is in order, and they don’t care if gets bloody.  The movie stars are telling them it’s great, the media are telling them it’s great, the union leaders are telling them it’s great, Obama himself is telling them it’s great. Hopefully we will never find out how close we really are to being ruled by tyrants and despots. But if we do find out, it will be because we have lost the capacity to form a moral (a socially conservative) argument against it.  It’s because we’re supposed to be the good guys and we tell ourselves every 4 years that morality in our leaders means spit. We just got what we asked for.

Perhaps you picked up the ability to think logically without associating it with social conservatism, but that is where it comes from. You could just as easily have learned to think with your emotion. In that world, self-interest is king. Sex is moral because it feels good. You can bemoan the death penalty with one breath and advocate the killing of the rich with the next. You can see the highest black unemployment rates since your great-grandfather was a share-cropper – but still think the Democrats who brought you that unemployment are your saviors.

Try to sit down and explain to an unemployed person why trickle down tax cuts on capital gains are better for them than another 6 months of unemployment checks. The only way you get there is social conservatism.

Try explaining to a 23 year old who has been indoctrinated into liberal mush for the last 18 years that socialism doesn’t work and communism just kills lot of people for no reason.

Try explaining to the average black man that Obama is the real Uncle Tom. Or the average immigrant that their better off if their families are shipped back to Mexico.

You have to tell the truth like Reagan did on a national stage. Yes folks its true, Planned Parenthood was created to kill black babies, and that was before it really got corrupt. No, there aren’t really good faith arguments on both sides of the issue.  Yes, if you think the Democrats have your true best interest in mind – you are brainwashed. Yes you need to laugh your head off when the President rides around on a bus and tells you how important his new jobs bill is, so important and he is so concerned that he will write the bill as soon as his 47^th vacation is over. Why – because the President has no morality, he doesn’t speak with a whit of concern for the truth – and that’s the truth.

People in the pro-life movement refer to blacks as the third wave of pro-lifers that will truly put us over the top. All it takes is for them to recognize en-masse what the pro-abortion movement is really all about.  It’s the same with Hispanics who are probably second only to the Irish in terms of Catholic faith. Yet we push them to vote against their faith – because we live in constant fear that a full on argument against abortion would be too divisive to mention in public.

We’ll follow the media’s lead and not bring up in polite company how the concerned President Obama who tells you who your enemies are – gave thousands of guns and bullets to the gangs destroying your homeland.

How can we expect these populations to vote against their apparent self-interest when we have no interest in even making the argument?

It’s great to whip out video’s of Milton Friedman, but you underestimate the degree of moral depravity we are dealing with. You need rudimentary comprehension of economics, or property rights, motivational forces, and the concept of getting what you pay for and working for your pay (reaping what you sow) for Freidman to sink in. If all you learned in high school was that the founders were slave owners then you’re not gonna get it.  If you think money comes from your daddy’s wallet, then you’re not gonna get it.

Typical campaign platitudes and lipstick jokes aren’t going to cut it – we need somebody that can speak truth to bull-****. Herman Cain is acting like he can do that. And to be able to wipe out the “Republican’s are racist’s argument!”  What kind of awesomeness is that! That’s your pixie dust and unicorn farts ready to put in your pipe and smoke.

I’m not saying we have to put blacks and Hispanics and trust fund protestors back into play to win this election, because I think we win it anyway.  But it will be another temporary victory. But if we could take a step towards unification of our people through an unabashed reminder of our shared values, we would be taking a step towards rational thought and away from the tyrants and despots hiding in the bushes.

We have witnessed a similar phenomenon here at Redstate over the last few weeks as the voices against Sarah Palin’s candidacy have reached critical mass. Suddenly everyone who changed their mind about Palin was part of a vast right wing conspiracy set up sometime in 2009 to tear her down at the last minute in favor of RINO’s. Perhaps the conspiracy theorists have identified their conservatism with Sarah Palin in an unhealthily way, such that they have a difficulty objectively assessing both Palin and the candidates who are actually running.  Don’t get me wrong, I acknowledge  that allegiances during the primaries are very difficult to assess, certainly many more factors are at play than defending fallen clergy. It is the allegations of conspiracy that lack objectivity, not necessarily the continued support Palin.

But once objectivity is lost, the argument ceases to be productive. It isn’t an objective vetting of candidates, it is the defense of a cult of personality. Like trying to explain to Roberta McCain that her son just isn’t conservative enough. But sometimes the conspiracy theory disintegrates on its own accord.   For instance, what if Palin does get in the race and she does get the support of at least some of those who were critical of her?

We have the same three way race on 9/14/2011, as we have had since Perry announced.  Perry, Romney, and Bachmann. Going back to 2009, my first choice for the 2012 nominee has included Palin, Mark Sanford, Mike Pence, Tim Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Perry, and probably others that I can’t bring to mind at the moment. Palin didn’t lose me because she has waited too long; she lost me with her mediocre performances on FOX long before that became an issue. Sanford was off the list for obvious reasons, Pence didn’t run, Pawlenty was convincing me until Bachmann got in, who I saw as more consistently conservative and Perry became my first choice due to his credentials, his very strong initial showing, and after two things occurred to sour Bachmann in my eyes. First – she has taken the position that the debt ceiling should not have been raised under any circumstances, and I don’t see that as a realistic option on a whim, it seemed to be either pandering or just delusional. I could come around to that position, but I didn’t see any serious path out of an immediate and extended period of default during the recent debt ceiling debate. Secondly, I felt her answer two debates ago about her faith and her husband as leader of the family – was inconsistent with the statement that she was explaining and inconsistent with her actual faith. I have been told I am wrong about that, but nonetheless it gave me the feeling she wore her religion on her sleeve when it was politically convenient and hid it under a bushel when it wasn’t.

Now an interesting thing happened as I tried to stay awake watching the midnight replay of the tea party debate. Perry’s social security answers were strong, but I experienced some disappointment with Perry as he seemed to jump on the bandwagon of “modernizing government” as a cure to our spending woes, then threw tort reform in as an apparent centerpiece strategy  for revitalizing our economy. I don’t disagree that modernizing our government and getting rid of waste and fraud can save us some dollars, but I view the savings along the lines of earmarks. Everybody says they’re going to do it, no-body can ever pull it off, and the impact wouldn’t be that great even if they did. Similar situation with Tort Reform. I can see the need for some tweaking of civil justice system, but Tort Reform has largely already occurred as I see it, because the insurance lobby has already convinced a majority of Americans that the Plaintiff’s Lawyers are usually at fault when a lawsuit is filed. Thus modern Jury’s love to find for the Defendant or award them minimal damages. And the last time I checked, insurance rates didn’t go down in any of those states with Tort Reform. Bottom, line is that I am not at all convinced that federal interference with the rights of Plaintiff’s to recover for injuries caused by negligence is necessary or prudent, and it certainly isn’t going to create a boon in the economy.

But Michelle Bachmann impressed me when she refused to jump on Newt’s minimalist bandwagon of “modernization” and instead spoke frankly about taking out entire Departments of the Federal government, and also didn’t jump on the “we have to keep the prescription drug program” bandwagon.

But almost as quickly as she gained credibility in my opinion, she doubled down on guardasil and accused Governor Perry of causing a child’s mental retardation!!! Ruinous slander is what I call strike two on the “using my religion when it benefits me” question, and touting a widely discredited medical theory in favor of the fringe position is strike two on the “I really am the Kook they make me out to be” question. I don’t have a problem if she believes that theory – but playing “I am smarter than all the  medical experts, and confident enough in my being smarter than them to blame Perry for a child’s retardation” is beyond the pale to me. It’s just makes it hard to trust her on anything. If she’s going to spin that statement she needs to do it quickly and in such a way that makes clear she wasn’t adopting the accusation of this mother, she was simply empathizing that somebody having that opinion shouldn’t be forced to have their children vaccinated.

All that is to say that I am not that thrilled with any of them right now and I wonder if Romney’s “electability” quotient and polish doesn’t increase in value as the notion of a “true conservative” being nominated diminishes, for want of a true conservative? I can also say that I am not nearly as opposed to a late Palin entrance as I was a week ago. She is still a true conservative in my book, and she is still trustworthy in my book.

I’m still a Perry fan on 9/14/2011, but Palin fans need to know that many Perry fans or Bachmann fans or Romney fans – are more open to a Palin run than you think depending on the day to day events of the primaries. Be objective in your support for her, your judgment of the competition, and especially – be objective before assuming any conservative critical of Palin is suffering from either sexism or rinoism.

If nothing else, try to see how damaging it is to your cause for your actions to cement Palin’s negatives in the eyes of someone who may yet change their mind.

My open letter to you is that you all sign off on the following open letter to President Obama. The attacks on your constituents have gone to far. This administration is responsible for what it says. When this administration and this DNC  refuses to even mildly challenge the vile speech of their loyalists, they not only provide tacit approval, they solidify the belief that it is top-down strategy. If you haven’t noticed the escalation of false attacks against the tea-party, then you haven’t been paying attention. If you don’t think you have any responsibility to your constituents who belong to the tea party, then we know where you stand. But if you do recognize some din reality that we are all American’s, then please sign onto this letter.

Sincerely,

A proud member of the Tea Party and the Republican Party who is tired of being lied about

–

Dear Mr. President,

As you make final preparations for your speech tomorrow night before the Congress and the American people, we respectfully request that you take the time to condemn the inflammatory rhetoric by those in your administration and your party that has been directed at those Americans who freely associate themselves with the “Tea Party”.  We respectfully inform you that we will not be attending your speech tomorrow night if this condemnation does not occur.

As we approach the 10^th anniversary of 9/11, we ask you to reflect on the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America, and the unity of purpose that 9/11 inspired in us all. The ever-declining economy and number of American’s who are suffering as a result, is perhaps our single greatest challenge, and we applaud your willingness to focus on this issue. However, our single greatest responsibility as members of congress is to keep American’s safe from physical harm. And that means all American’s, whether they are tea partiers or socialists, management or labor, black or white, rich or poor – All Americans.  We hope you will recognize that as your primary duty too.

The Iranian government has been holding young American citizens hostage for over a year because they hiked onto Iranian soil. But your administration has never accused the Iranian government of taking our citizens hostage. You have reserved that language for the Tea Partiers – merely because they want to protect themselves and their children from government spending and debt so precarious that it has caused the United States of America to lose our AAA rating.

The Chinese government takes women from their homes forcibly, straps them to operating tables, and kills the growing child inside them against their will. A true act of terrorism, yet the Vice President was clear that he “did not question their one child policy.” He didn’t even question it, let alone call it what it is – terrorism. He has saved that adjective for American’s who freely associate themselves with the Tea Party, merely to escalate the theme that millions of American’s who don’t happen to agree with you  are hostage takers.

The Syrian government, long hostile towards America is slaughtering thousands of their own citizens who are rebelling against oppression, but your administration and those in your party do not consider calling Syria an “enemy,” because of the harshness of that term. Another term so inflammatory it can only be applied to the American Citizens you have sworn a duty to protect.

In Libya, not a country that has been hostile to American, we have been engaged for months in a war that was supposed to last a few days. A war which was supposed to be about protecting the citizens of Libya, but which has become a full fledged war to “take out” Kaddafi.  Still, we don’t say that out loud in public circles. No that level of murderous threat is reserved for the tea party. Mr.  President, with all due respect, you have given the Unions control of GM when the law would have preferred the bondholders. You have exempted the Unions from the law of your signature health care plan, which was supposed to be applied to all Americans. Your administration is trying to force American companies to locate in Union friendly states under no legal basis but union patronage.  Corporations, Cities, States, and entire industries are collapsing under the weight of bloated  union contracts. Yet you refuse to condemn Jimmy Hoffa for stating he was gathering an army to take out the sons of bitches in the tea party? Isn’t the union vote sufficient reward for your favorable treatment?Must you also encourage hatred and violent thoughts towards those Americans who do not agree with you?

You won 95% of the black vote. The black unemployment rate is at 16.7%, the highest it has been in 27 years. Yet over 90% of blacks still support you, and continue to rank your performance higher than any other racial group. It is not for us to say whether this support is based on race or not. But to allow a continuing charge of racism to be levied against the tea party because they lack black membership is so intentionally and disingenuously defamatory, inflammatory, and divisive that it can only pale in comparison to comments such a Hoffa’s or Maxine Waters’ who wishes her fellow American citizens would go straight to hell. How can the tea party be blamed that blacks still support you despite the economic harm your polices have caused them? It is clearly not the tea party that excludes blacks, but the free choice of African Americans to support you.

After the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, President John F. Kennedy took responsibility for that failure in the fight against communism with a speech that began as follows:

The President of a great democracy such as ours, and the editors of great newspapers such as yours, owe a common obligation to the people: an obligation to present the facts, to present them with candour, and to present them in perspective. It is with that obligation in mind that I have decided in the last 24 hours to discuss briefly at this time the recent events in Cuba.

We can do nothing about the sometimes duplicitous nature of the media, Mr. President, but we can and must request a higher standard from our Commander in Chief. You lead the United States Military in battles against our enemies, with the primary purpose of protecting all American citizens. You do not lead the AFL-CIO in battle against some of those Americans you are sworn to protect.

We stand in solidarity with the tea party, to request that you present the facts and speak with the candor necessary to fulfill your promise as a unifying force in this country. We are all tea partiers’ now Mr. President and we will work with you 100% to solve America’s problems. But only after you clearly remove your tacit approval of those who would call us terrorists, racists, enemies, and sons of bitches.

Sincerely,

The Following Members of the United States Congress

I invite others to add their own stories or thoughts of tenacity, practicality, optimism, and creativity in conservatism.

In 1992 I was able to gather 3 or 4 friends ad hoc to form the Muskingum College Young Republicans and attend a campaign speech by Dan Qualye at the Zanesville mall. We made a barely legible sign that read, “Everybody needs a little Bush.” Despite the frat boy signage, and immaturity beyond my years I found my 21 year old self quite dissatisfied to learn that with what passed for a campaign rally was even more rude, crude, and uninformative than my sign. I was supposed to be immature, and had no problem meeting expectations, but I expected more from the candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States of America than 20 minutes of negative one-liners about the opposing candidate. Yet here I am today, still fighting the good the good fight. Why?

Because sometimes George W. Bush will steal the show by answering Jesus Christ is the philosopher or thinker who most shaped his beliefs, sometimes God Bless America will be spelled out on every sign post in America and you can’t drive more than a block without seeing the stars and stripes waving proudly from a front porch, sometimes Sarah Palin will rejuvenate the conservative movement with the word “lipstick,” sometimes if you stay up till 4:00 in the morning you see a staggering sweep of conservatives into office, and sometimes Marco Rubio gives hope that another great communicator is in our midst.

What could be more optimistic than George Will responding to what must have been an absolute deluge of contempt for his “Tea-Partiers support Obama” piece – than an homage to Libertarianism less than a week later.  Balm? I guess it depends on how much you disdain libertarianism in your conservatism and Will’s apparent mea-culpa to the latter by calling them the former. I guess the only thing that could be more optimistic is that the latest polls that indicate the anti-Romney conservative vote appears to be well over 60%.

Whether George Will can ease the tensions dividing Republicans in the last few weeks or not, his piece brings to the fore the reality of our time.  Do not count on anything to be permanent. Change often seems the natural enemy of conservatism doesn’t it? Morals, language, borders, and culture – we want to protect them from the change of progressivism. But relativism is not honest change no matter how much lipstick you put on it. It is not honest or positive change to eliminate God from our lives – it is positive change to read the bible on your ipad, or Xoom, or kindle. Conservatism cannot be squished to one dimension by sloganeering anymore than Paul Krugman can save Keynesian economics by re-arranging the deck chairs for the 1000^th time.

Honest change is renewal, and it is the beating heart of conservatism.

Conservatism seeks nothing but to remove all obstacles to righteous growth, change, and renewal. To keep power as local as possible is to keep it as fresh and responsive and adaptive as possible.  To allow the market to work is to move from cotton gin, to assembly line, to the internal combustion engine, to the Wright brothers, to a man on the moon (OK government did that, but only because of competition!), to a geek starting in his garage competing with a geek who couldn’t come up with anything better than “Apple,” only to be outdone by a geek in his dorm room competing with a geek who couldn’t come up with anything better than “Google,”  and everything in between. To keep the people’s money with the people, to allow charity to help the right people at the right time is more progressive than progressivism. To keep a strong military that can address a changing class of enemies and protect and preserve the greatest engine for true change the world has ever known is conservatism.  Progressives hate honest change and would leave it undefended as a means to encourage a world of uniform mediocrity.

And this leads me to creativity.  Sparked by the lefts dogmatic refusal to accept an honest debate on Fox news in 2008. Sparked by George Will’s reminder that the world has changed and so has politics. Sparked by the inspiration of those who held the line?

In 2012, it is time for a new debate format. Do the liberal networks hold some permanent monopoly on presidential debates? Only if we let them.  The candidates get to ask each other questions using the full spectrum of multimedia available. Don’t just ask Obama what he would do if the debt ceiling weren’t raised – show him the video of himself threatening seniors and ask him how he justified the threat in the face of options galore to make sure seniors got paid. Ask him if he thought house R’s were extremist but play the video of his speech just a few years prior – explaining his no vote to raise the debt ceiling. Ask him about his theory on “paying your fair share” but make him sit through his ties to Jeff Immelt and the fact that GE paid zero taxes last year before answering.  The respondent must answer the pre-prepared multimedia question on the spot – but will also have time for researched multimedia rebuttal during the second half of the debate.

Simply put, the truth is always the friend of conservatism and the enemy of liberalism. Take debates out of the hands of the network anchors who tell lies about conservatives and conservatism for a living. It’s a simple matter of our candidates refusing any debates unless and until the Democrat agrees to such a progressive, renewing, and honest multimedia debate. Will they be stuck in their stodgy old network TV ways – or will they truly embrace honest change. Forcing them into the 21^st century would simply be a matter of …. Holding the line.

God bless you and your family lineholder, and I hope to see you back here real soon.

As the story goes, Sherrod Brown was the beneficiary of rino tomfoolery. In 1992 the R establishment in Ohio wanted Mike Dewine to run for retiring Howard Metzenbaums senate seat in 1994, but staunchly conservative 6 term congressman, Bob McEwen was expected to run and had a leg up in that prospective race. So the establishment used the 1992 redistricting to make McEwen’s safe seat unsafe – and pitted McEwen against another R incumbent  Ted Miller, in the primary in a newly drawn district. McEwen beat Miller in a brutal primary, then lost in the general to Ted Strickland by a small margin. Thus getting McEwen out of the way for Mike Dewine in the 1994 Senate race. Dewine ended up being very squishy on several issues, and lost in 06 to Sherrod Brown. It was Dewine’s squishyness as well as the whole Ohio Republican party leadership’s that led to Brown’s victory as much as much as any national sentiment. So we gave away two safe house seats to a dem who rode it to the governors mansion so we could avoid a conservative senator who would have likely defeated Sherrod Brown. The story was told to me by somebody very close to Bob McEwen.

McEwen then tried in the second district but was defeated by Rob Portman. When Portman joined the Bush team in 05, McEwen tried again. In  that primary race, Pat Dewine (son of Mike) spent a million bucks (spent the most in the race) mostly sliming McEwen as the top candidate in the special election.  Jean Schmidt nosed McEwen thanks to Dewines million bucks. Dewine came in 4th.
—

Third example is a tea party meeting where a buddy of mine attended and they were trying  to get to the bottom of a slush fund in Clermont County with millions  of dollars  sitting in it while  schools in the County were discontinuing bus service. Basically a couple of burly men showed up at the meeting and started shouting down the tea partiers who were asking all the right questions. Bottom line  is these guys demand you fall in  line or else. Its the way they operate.

Now they are on the outs with Governor Kasich for not falling in line -

http://beta.wosu.org/columbusontherecord/monday-round-up-new-job-for-mr-cordray-kasich-v-ohio-gop

My take is that these guys arent dumb enough to make those statments thinking the general public will know where they came from, but they dont have any love loss for Kasich, and probably not Boehner either. If they can be anonymous but still get people attributing this stuff to  either of them, its a small victory  whether they can oust Jordon or not. They also arent going to be fans of Josh Mandel – who is a huge rising star in the ohio conservative movement – so the Ken Blackwell (not blaming Blackwell for this) threat to pit Jordan against Mandel would be no problem for them – either way one  strong conservative gets the axe.

Bottom line is that Kevin Dewine is a super-squish whose goals are often to oust conservatives and whose methods destroy the integrity of Ohio’s Republican party. Jon Husted and Mike Dewine are also old establishment Republicans that got us roundly rejected in 06.

Everyone is afraid to take Kevin Dewine on or thwarted when they try, but this dirty laundry on the national stage – if it was him, might just be enough to finnaly crack down and eliminate the  Dayton mafia.

The question is does this belie the concern that the Presidents and the media’s all out efforts to blame the debt ceiling crisis on Republicans has succeeded even in a small way? The eventual problem with lapdog media is that they  sit in your lap even as the house burns down around you.  The more ridiculous Obama’s arguments have become, the more strained the media’s credibility becomes. If Obama truly just lost 15% of independents in a two month time frame, I suggest that is because he simply can’t fool anybody anymore – no matter how complicit the media is. Threatening social security checks, blaming Bush again, calling tax cuts – “spending in the tax code,” calling tea partiers extreme for wanting the same thing a majority of Americans want. Whatever the tipping point – if he has made 15% of the independents incredulous to everything he says in a two month time span – then isn’t he done?

Hasn’t he become Carter? Even the media cares more about self-preservation than propping up Obama; won’t they abandon him in droves? When Nancy Pelosi must assert that preventing spending cuts is akin to “saving life on this planet as we know it,” isn’t it obvious that fewer people are buying it?

And if the rest is true – doesn’t it mean he is done for good? Can he ever come back from the lack of faith that this poll seems to represent?

And if he is done, then doesn’t that vindicate the strategy to……  HOLD THE LINE!

These are the vast middle of America, which would lean right if they ever cared enough to get the honest facts, but often poll left without those facts. These are the ones, “the narrative” is written for.  There are few opportunities to sway the moderates against “the narrative” in the short term, because they don’t watch Fox, listen to Rush, or read RedState.  These are the people that Reagan spoke directly to, circumventing the leftist media.

Speaker Boehner has had at least two opportunities in the last week to speak to many of these people – and he has done very little to challenge the narrative. His words have been good as far as they went, but it has been as if there is very little being said on the left that is worth challenging.

How can we entirely blame the media, when we squander opportunities to get the truth to those who need it most? Was there a doubt that Obama’s speech would blame President Bush for the debt crisis? Has he ever, ever, ever, opened a national address without blaming President Bush? Was it a brilliant sneak attack that Republicans would be accused of putting out old ladies in favor of jet setting billionaires? Is anybody surprised that tea partiers and the house republicans in general were characterized as extreme and juvenile, while Obama was balanced and responsible?

I may be a little off in interpreting some of the numbers; I may be a little too disrespectful of the President for Primetime, but here is the gist of  what I would have said in response to the President last night -

The last time the United States of America risked losing its AAA, top notch credit rating – was not under George Bush, it was never. Yet we are going to lose our AAA rating under this President, even if the debt ceiling is raised. So far the only plan that can save our rating is the bill that raises the debt ceiling, averts default, and has already been passed by the house and tabled by the Senate. The President has already promised to veto this bill while accusing republicans of being the party of no – because it doesn’t raise taxes.

The last time our gross public debt exceeded 100% of our gross domestic product was not under George Bush, it was 1949. Yet the President’s debt exceeded gross domestic product in 2009 and 2010, and is projected to do so every year of his Presidency if we don’t change course. By 2016 the debt is expected to be over 24 trillion dollars, which will exceed our GDP by nearly 5 billion dollars. By the end of 2011, only his 3^rd year in Office this President will have increased the debt by nearly 6 trillion dollars. More than President Bush did in his entire 8 year term, while fighting 2 wars, dealing the the affects of 911, providing one of the largest tax cuts to all Americans, and providing prescription drug care for Seniors.

2011 is also projected for another distinction, the highest federal budget deficit in history at 1.5 trillion dollars.

I don’t lay out these facts to defend President Bush’s past actions, or to blame President Obama for his past actions.  I lay out these facts to request the presence of the President in this crisis, in the here and now. That is where we must do our work, it can not be accomplished pushing the blame to the president of three years ago, and it cannot be done in some utopia of the future where government efficiently provides all things to all people and punishes the prosperous for daring to prosper. It is the here and now where we are spending ourselves into oblivion that must be addressed. If you cannot join us Mr. President, please get out of the way.

It was not useful in a debt crisis that President Obama proposed in February a $3.69 trillion dollar budget, the highest proposed budget ever, and one that was so outrageous it was voted down in the Democratic controlled Senate 97-0. Not a single vote. There is no sudden concern for balanced approach; there is no concern for balance at all. Even under the rosiest of predictions, unfettered, President Obama will have added over 6 trillion dollars to the national debt by the end of 1 term as President. We don’t think there is anything unbalanced about cutting that number in half, as a good start. Balance to the President means promising to cut 2 to 4 trillion of spending over the next 5-10 years, while at the same time adding 10-20 trillion in spending during the same time frame. But it’s a different story for taxes – those just go up under the Presidents balanced approach and not just for jet setting billionaires either.

Now, the only branch of government controlled by Republicans has passed the only bill that not only increases the debt ceiling, but that likely preserves our credit rating – and the President all but refuses to acknowledge the bill even exists – because it doesn’t raise taxes.  In other words, he will risk the full faith and credit of the United States if can’t take more money from the very people who already pay 80% the taxes, and who employ much of the nation.

If the President would like to agree on a permanent basis to reduce his assets to those of the middle class by donating them all the federal government, then he could donate every dime over $250,000.00 that he makes every year to the government, then give another 40% on top of that to the federal government. At least then he could state his opinions on what each person’s “fair share” is based on experience. But even if he were willing to put himself in those shoes, his pronouncements gain nothing more than the avoidance of the hypocrisy he now lives and breathes. The President of the United States does not sit in judgment on what each person’s fair share is. We collect taxes to run the government and there is no shame in that – we do not collect taxes to divvy the fruits of the American People’s labor according to one man’s notion of everyone else’s “fair share.”

Keep in mind; this is the same president who informed the country that a recession was no time to raise taxes when he extended the Bush tax cuts last year. The Bush tax cuts which benefit nearly all tax-paying Americans – but which this President liked to claim only benefited millionaires and billionaires before he decided a recession wasn’t a good time to raise taxes.  But that was when he could both spend more and leave the tax rates alone. He doesn’t control the whole government anymore, and so he has flip-flopped about the prudence of raising taxes during a recession.

Now he is back to accusing our plan of benefiting Billionaires at the expense of senior citizens. Apparently you are supposed to forget that before Obama was for seniors, he was blaming President Bush for providing them  prescription drugs. And that is just in the same speech, only a few minutes apart. Lest we forget it was only a few days ago that he threatened to stop paying seniors their social security even though we could pay all of our social security obligations for decades even without a debt increase. Lest we forget it was only a few months ago he stripped billions of dollars out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare.  Those are specifics – how it is our plan is supposed to hurt seniors has never been stated with specificity.

Remember, there is one plan in writing, which has also passed with b-partisan support in the House of Representatives.  There is no Obama plan; there is no Democrat plan from any branch of government to compare it with. It may be good rhetoric to pretend you can get the trillions of dollars we need from the handful of jet-setting billionaires in this country, but it simply isn’t reality. Or to pretend our plan is extreme when 5 democrats voted for it. I guess those are extreme tea-party democrats according to the President. Mr. President, produce a real plan with actual cuts and actual increases, so we can really see whose plan truly affects American’s the most. If not, get out of the way.

It may be good rhetoric to quote Reagan as if Ronald Reagan would have ever allowed us to get into this position in the first place, but sound bites cannot hide the fact that Reagan left office with the gross national debt 1/5 the size of the national debt  today. President Clinton left office with a national debt nearly 1/3 the size of what it is today.

I should not have to waste the American people’s time with these facts.  I should not have to waste time responding to a President who takes to the airwaves every day to create a false narrative about our plan, his non-plan, and the nature of this crisis – for political gain. We moved beyond that months ago, and we ask that the President join us, or get out of the way. The House has already passed a bi-partisan bill that could increase the debt ceiling at anytime. The house and the Senate are working together on alternative measures. We certainly have fundamental disagreements, we certainly use strong rhetoric from time to time – but we have done and are doing the work Mr. President. Our plan is straightforward. We don’t use words to confuse the American people like referring to tax increases as “reduced spending in the tax code.” It’s called Cut, Cap and Balance. Just like it sounds it’s about cutting spending, capping spending, and balancing the budget. If the people want to review the details of the only plan to have been written down, passed by congress, and tat has the support of democrats and republicans, they should go to ???CCB.ORG where the plan can be found in its entirety.  Unfortunately, I am placed in the position of asking that the American people do NOT take the President’s word for it.

I would argue that if the SS “trust fund” was a “trust fund” in any true sense of the word, then SS payments would have a standing even higher than the Constitutional mandate of “no default.”

The meaning of a trust fund is that you are holding somebody else’s money in trust. It is not your money. Therefore any default on the payments could invoke the due process clauses of the Constitution by depriving people of their property without due process of law. In fact a lawyer with more time on their hands than me might seek social security recipients as Plaintiffs in a Declaratory Judgment action, seeking a declaration of SS’s priority – based on Obama’s threat not to pay.

As a lawyer, I hold the retainers I receive from clients in trust. I must set up a special trust account at the bank specifically for this purpose. If this account is ever overdrawn, the bank must report it to the Supreme Court of Ohio by law. The shortest path to disbarment (and the most common) is for a lawyer to use money from this trust account for anything besides its intended purpose. I cant pay my bills or my employees or my rent or leg surgery for little Timmy who will surely die if he doesn’t get the surgery out of this fund. Its just that simple. I must go down in flames before I can take my clients money. And there are weeks that I don’t get paid even though I’ve got tens of thousands of dollars in my trust fund. I guess this answers the age old question of who is lower in the pond scum category between lawyers and politicians.

The audacity of Obama indicating that payments from funds held in trust for seniors and the disabled would be the first to go should be seized on like a junkyard dog by every candidate and media outlet of good repute and should not be released until Obama’s pants are ripped off and the true import of his threat stands naked before the American people.

Think about it. He is suggesting his multimillion dollar monthly vacations, his bloated staff, Pelosi’s billion dollar studies of frogs in San Fran Bay, Michelle’s revamping of every food pyramid chart in a public school ….. etc etc etc would all supersede seniors recieveing their own money back. If our people cannot muster the courage to explain this to the American people, then it seems there is no lie or distortion this man can’t get away with.

Now, I don’t claim to know the actual legal status of the SS “trust fund” versus a trust account as I have described or a trust fund in the common sense of the word. Obviously we know that the money we put in goes to pay the current beneficiaries and is not held for us. There is also some indication that the SC has ruled against construing the trust fund as a trust fund, but the issue was not exactly on point. The issue here is priority of payment versus guarantee of a certain return.

But  no matter if my post holds any legal validity or not, if they want to use Orwellian terms to describe the SS “trust fund”, then they should be held to those terms. They have no problem telling us how safe the money is when Republicans offer an alternative that allows people to keep their own retirement funds, and BO’s ridiculous threat shouldn’t die at least the next 2 election cycles if for no other reason than dispelling the notion that there is a “lock box” or a “trust fund” or anything else that protects your retirement income from going to fund abortions in Africa.

When a social conservative sees a politician willing to call a truce on truth – he knows he is dealing with someone willing to call a truce on truth. And that is really all we need to know.

I don’t have the time to do the leg work – but I will bet anyone a crisp $100.00 bill. That if you take the voting records of every Republican in the house and senate, cross referenced with those who are outspokenly pro-life, – you will see an overwhelming trend that the squishier they are towards social issues, the squishier they are towards fiscal issues, size of government issues, and power of government issues. I am willing to bet, if we used an honest scale,  it is by at least a two to one margin. Good recent examples are Murkowski who recently suggested we back off Planned Parenthood, the Jr. Senator from MASS, the party changing Specter and Christ of Florida, the traitorous endorser Dede Scozzafava. It’s not that some of these people aren’t capable of being conservative on certain issues; it’s more that they will go any way the wind blows, because truth is relative to them. I am not saying we don’t need some of them or that every district can elect an all around conservative. I am also not saying that you don’t have some great socons who are lousy fiscally, etc and not worth voting for. I am saying, I bet there is a pretty big general rule that could be discerned showing socons to be the stongest overall cons.  I am saying on the national level, there is no excuse for pandering to the moral relativists.

Back to the “truce is OK” crowd.  Here is what I have seen in the last few months (again as a general rule).

1.       No matter how many times their parsing of the truce and more truce comments are exposed – they keep trying to inject new meaning to Daniels statements that isn’t supported by fact or logic.

2.       No matter how many times it is pointed out that nomination of judges simply isn’t the only social issue that occurs in national office, they will continue to argue that it is.

3.       They will continue to simply ignore the truth that “a truce” is exactly what the left wants and has always wanted on social issues.  Just keep your mouth shut and let us continue to attack the truth by every deception known to man.  That is all the left asks of us, and so there is no such thing as a truce. Whether you call it a freeze or a pause or a reset or a hyper focus – it all means surrender.

It is precisely because they are not social conservatives that they cannot see what the social conservative sees in these areas. It is precisely because the truth is malleable that they are able to make these arguments which seem so ridiculous to us. To see someone touting the moral courage of a man who wants to call a truce on the taking of millions of innocent lives each year because “at least he is not pandering” riles us up in the same way we want to argue with the pro-abort who touts the moral courage of the late term abortionist for providing women’s “reproductive health”.

But they cannot see the problem with their logic, so they are largely immune to proofs against it, and they will repeat the same unpersuasive arguments ad nauseum.

But as Daniels thwarts RTW and endorses Lugar, some of them start to drop off the bandwagon. Why, because in the real world a person doesn’t have to be a SOCON to have a decent chance of maintaining their convictions in other areas – fiscal, size of govt. , defense, etc.  It’s why I would never suggest exclusion of non-socons from the party, or the discussion. But, while it may be possible to be and vote “conservative” in every area but social conservatism, it is much much harder for the non-socon politician to maintain those other convictions in the face of the Washington Culture trying to mold them the other way.  Because the truth is malleable, and Washington is quite the meat grinder.

So year after year, election after election, we get talked into socon squish’s because they are great in some other tenet of conservatism.  Then we wonder how they could govern so differently once they get to Washington. Maybe we can’t convince everyone to be a socon. But maybe we can demonstrate that they are never going to get integrity out of someone willing to call “truces” on abortion. Of course we might lose some closet single issue voters, who pretend social neutrality but actually place the right to abort over all other issues. But, I don’t think there are that many of them, and I think we can do without them.

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 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.

 

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

1. Uses their “sex education” programs to promote abortion and the idea of abortion, even to children as young as 5 years old,
2. Promotes promiscuity and irresponsible sexual behaviors to children, teenagers, and those with AIDS,
3. Promotes abortion and coerces women into having abortions over the options of parenthood and adoption, even when that requires lying about the facts of abortion.
4.  Promotes abortion as a method of eugenics to reduce the population, and specifically populations of those Planned Parenthood considers “undesirable.”
5. Is willing to aid, abet, and advise those who sexually exploit and/or force children into sexual relationships.  

The truth about Planned Parenthood is being revisited because 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 just been released.

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 committed may be punished as if they had committed the crime themselves.                      – 18 U.S.C. 2 

In one video, the Planned Parenthood manager in NJ conspires with investigators posing as sex traffickers managing 14-15 year old sex slaves. She tells them how to get illegal abortions for the minor sex slaves, how to lie about the age of the girls, how to circumvent reporting requirements, how to use the girls in the sex trade while they are recovering from abortions, and how to facilitate bribes in exchange for expedited service, and dealing with any problems. 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. Seven videos at seven different locations in three different states and Washington DC. The full length videos are on the website. Below are portions of the transcript from one of these videos.

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…

…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.

…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…

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? As the videos 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 excuse is a red herring. Furthermore, Individual PP employees did not report these incidents to local authorities as is required by law. They reported the incidents more than a week after they occurred, and only after they discovered that this was an undercover investigation. The “we reported it” argument is also a red-herring that PP supporters can be quoted, but that has no basis in fact. Former PP director Abbey Johnson confirmed that this type of thing happens all the time, in Planned Parenthoods all over the country:  “It happens all the time, I let it happen.” 

There should be no debate, federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to aid, abet, and counsel sex traffickers of 14-15 year old girls?  

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

 To comprehend such an organizational and systemic failure to protect young girls from their abusers, it is necessary to understand the culture envisioned by PP’ founder. Margaret Sanger’s  solution to most of the world’s ills was preventing births. It was her ideology, it was her religion.  

There is a dispute to which Sanger was a racist or merely didn’t want African American’s to have children because they coincidentally were among that class of unfortunates or undesirables who she believed to be poor and without hope for advancement. It is almost a distinction without a difference. For a short read that encapsulates Sanger’s twisted vision read the chapter The Materials of the New Race, beginning on page 30 from her book Woman and the New Race. In it, she describes her complex quest for racial purity, her hyper-fear of overpopulation and scarce resources and her often misguided compassion based on an utterly bleak view of the individual’s capacity for self determination.  However, Sanger herself did not approve of abortion:

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.

- Sanger, Margaret (1938). Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography. New York: W. W. Norton. p. 217.

Planned Parenthood remains steadfast to the founder’s vision with regard to preventing births through contraception, yet ignores and vehemently opposes Sanger’s belief that abortion is the taking of a life. 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,” through the means of contraception, and then added the means of abortion – as the preferred method of achieving that goal.

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 to create a stronger race, PP now promotes abortion as a means to limit those populations.

While it seems inconceivable that any organization could hold such views in 2011, an unguarded moment by a powerful and well respected source re-stated those views in 2009. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader channeled Sanger in a July 2009 interview published in the New York Times Magazine:

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.  It remains one of the more shameful omissions of the press that these statements were given very limited attention at the time.

There should be no debate, federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to promote abortion, much less to promote abortion as means of physical, mental, social, and racial eugenics. 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD PROMOTES ABORTIONS (with our tax dollars)

What must be broadly exposed is the distinction between the stated purpose of Planned Parenthood to advocate for the woman’s right to choose and their actual purpose of promoting 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 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, the American notion of liberty, or public sentiment. Today, PP Whitewashes Sanger’s unsavory world view when it pays homage to her battle for women’s rights and in the same manner, Planned Parenthood’s outward mantra of a “right to choose”, or  a woman’s “reproductive health,” only whitewashes their real agenda, because they know the public would never tolerate it. 

How do they get away with it? A compliant media, quiet yet powerful supporters like Justice Ginsburg, and the use of taxpayer dollars to build political power. With a combined total of over $1,000,000.00, Planned Parenthood was the largest pro-choice donor to federal candidates and committees, and spent the most on lobbyists. Theoretically, PP does not use tax payer dollars to pay for abortions. In reality, all of PP’s operations feed their abortion business. Abbey Johnson left her position as a Director of Planned Parenthood after becoming disillusioned by the constant pressure to increase profits by performing more and more abortions:

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 wouldn’t more abortions occur if PP wasn’t there to hand out contraception? 

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? According to Planned Parenthood’s own 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, 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 rising graph lines over the years, for every $1,000,000.00 in taxpayer dollars received, PP performs roughly another 1000 abortions. 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%.

The previous Omnibus Appropriations bill under President Obama 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. If PP receives 100 million of the increase, we can expect them to perform another 100,000 abortions in 2011.

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. 

As a former director of PP points out, promotion extends to coercion:

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

In 2008 and 2009, a separate 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 investigator posing as a young woman considering abortion to have her abortion now, when it is more safe and less costly.

Promotion and coercion also extends into our schools. 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. This education machine is used to promote abortion. They claim to provide “comprehensive” “medically accurate and age-appropriate sex education” but it is not difficult to read between the lines of their materials, such as “What children need to know and when they need to know it:” 

For 5 year olds

• the correct names for all body parts, including sex and reproductive organs
• how to talk about their sexual parts without feeling naughty
• that it’s normal to touch one’s sex organs for pleasure[2]
• to seek privacy when touching one’s sex organs for pleasure
• how a “baby” “gets in” and “gets out” of a woman’s body
• that a woman does not have to have a baby unless she wants to

For 5-7 year olds

• that people experience sexual pleasure in a number of different ways
• that everyone has sexual thoughts and fantasies and having them is normal
• that familues are structured in different ways
• the roles and responsibilties of different members of their families
• how to live outside of stereotyped gender roles
• that sexual identity includes sexaul orientation

[In the 5-7 year old category, "sexual pleasure" is linked to a page including the following]:

 

Is Sexual Pleasure Good for Us? Yes. Sexual pleasure can be importatn to our emotional and physical health and well-being.

 

As healthy sex life – with or without a partner – has been associated with

• better reproductive and sexual health
• better general health
• better sleep
• reduce stress and tension
• increased self-esteem
• a more youthful appearance
• better fitness
• longer life

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 engage in sex to so they can live longer clearly promotes contraception and abortion.

For 8-12 year olds:

     ABOUT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, PRETEENS NEED TO KNOW

• how to accept human sexuality and their own sexual feelings as a natural part of life
• that masturbation is very common - that it si normal to masturbate, but only in private
• that people have sex for pleasure – that it’s not done only to have a baby
• they don’t have to feel guilt about masturbating
• what sexually transmited infections and safer sex are
• how to talk about and practice safer sex
• what rape is
• what sex work is and why it’s dangerous for young women and young men

ABOUT HUMAN REPRODUCTION AND BIRTH CONTROL, PRETEENS NEED TO KNOW

• the biology of the fertililty cycle, how pregnancy happens, and the basiscs about how a pregnancy develops
• that people have sex for pleasure – that its not only done to have a baby
• that birth control methods – including emergency contraception – can prevent pregnancy
• that 85 out of 100 women who have vaginal intercourse will become pregnant within a year if they do not use birth control
• how to talk about birth contol and what some of the methods are
• how to get birth control
• what abortion is 

Notice that at 8 children are told twice that they don’t have to have a baby, and then they learn about abortion.  I will not even go into the numerous problems parents have when PP comes to their school, such as the 8 year old condom tasting class.  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 “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 openly targets youth. Their 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 promote their agenda to children, to lobby against informed consent, to lobby against abstinence education, etc.[xxxiii]  It is incredible that PP even attempts to deny that they promote abortion given the slanted advice they offer on their website. It begins like this

You have three options — abortion, adoption, and parenting… [and ends like this]“Think about which benefits and risks are most important to you.

Note that abortion is listed first and parenting last. Note that PP advises you to focus on yourself, PP never ever mentions considering the life inside you.  If you follow the link to the “parenting option” PP advises: 

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

• Am I ready to help a child feel wanted and loved?
• Am I ready to cope with a tighter budget, less time for myself, and more stress?
• Do I have the support of family and friends?
• Am I ready to accept responsibility for all my child’s needs?
• Would I prefer to have a child at another time?
• Is  anyone pressuring me to continue or end the pregnancy?
• How do I feel about other women who have children from unplanned pregnancies?
• Can I handle the experience of pregnancy and raising a child?
• Can I afford to have a child?
• What would it mean for my future and my family’s future if I had a child now?
• How important is it to me what other people will think about my decision?

• Can I handle the experience of pregnancy and 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.

EVERY single consideration regarding parenting is negative towards parenting. 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

• Am I ready to be a parent?
• Can I afford to be a parent now?
• What would it mean for my future if I had a child now?
• Can I accept not being my child’s primary parent?
• Does adoption feel like what I should do, not what I want to do?
• Would I consider abortion?
• Is someone pressuring me to choose adoption?
• Am I prepared to go through pregnancy and childbirth?
• Will I be able to cope with the feeling of loss that I may have?
• Do I have people in my life who will help me through the pregnancy and adoption process?
• How do I feel about other women who choose to place their children for adoption?

The only thing that can be said in fairness is that on the “abortion” page, there are 5 suggestive questions advocating abortion, 6 neutral questions, and 2 that could advocate against abortion. But the 5 questions advocating for abortion are listed first, and the 2 that advocate against are arguably thrown in simply so they can pretend it is neutral guidance. Consider next how deceptive they are about the risks of abortion:

Are There Any Long-Term Risks of Abortion?  

There are many myths about the risks of abortion. Here are the facts. Abortion does not cause breast cancer. Safe, uncomplicated abortion does not cause problems for future pregnancies such as birth defects, premature birth or low birth weight babies, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, or infant death.

Without addressing the questionable accuracy of 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 of abortion. If they are this coercive in the public domain, imagine what they do behind closed doors when they “counsel” scared young women.

PP’s founder promoted coerced or forced contraception, a former PP director states plainly that they  now 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 sexualize and indoctrinate children beginning at age 5 that abortion is just another outcome of pregnancy, and their “choice” aids are deceptively persuasive.

There should be no debate, federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to promote abortion. 

PLANNED PARENTHOOD PROMOTES ABORTIONS ACCORDING TO RACE/CLASS/AGE/? 

In addition to the founder’s views, and Justice Ginsburg’s apparent restatement of those views with regard to abortion, 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 also statistical evidence of targeting by race and class. 67-80% (depending on the study) of PP’s clinics are located in poor and 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 if 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 discounts for the poor, the 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. If the price was too high, some of those women in minority neighborhoods might chose adoption or caring for their child versus abortion. This is also why PP’s top priority is securing federal funding for abortions. If that ever happens, the price for an abortion will skyrocket – and you and I will be paying the bill.

There should be no debate, federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to promote abortions by race and class.  

NOT THE FIRST TIME PLANNED PARENTHOOD AIDED AND ABETED SEX OFFENDERS

Planned Parenthood has been caught red handed numerous times protecting sex-offenders. One example is a June 2008 investigation where 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. The same scenario is repeated in Indianapolis, IN, Tucson, AR, Phoenix, AZ , Birmingham, AL, Memphis TN, Milwaukee WI, and Louisville, KY. That is 8 clinics in 6 states assisting a 13-15 year old girl to get an abortion, and/or lie about the age of their abuser to protect him, and where applicable,  how to get around parental consent . 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, etc.

And in civil and criminal legal actions against PP, between 1998 – 2009, at least six lawsuits were 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, one of the few Prosecutors 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:

There should be no debate, federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to assist in the cover up of statutory rape.

 PPs frauds and felonies in service of this twisted ideology must be stopped

Recent video investigations have shown that that Planned Parenthood is “disturbingly eager to facilitate the sexual exploitation of children forced into prostitution. Planned Parenthood is disturbingly eager to facilitate the sexual exploitation of minors forced into sexual relationships. PP is disturbingly eager to promote abortions for the purpose of racial and class eugenics. 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. 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 worldview, their ideology, their religion is simply that horrific.  And they are aware of the need to hide the truth because most of the world sees their ideology in this way. Their entire world then becomes a fraud in the 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 committing more frauds and felonies in the service of that ideology.

PP took Sanger’s vision and corrupted the already corrupt by promoting abortion, by sexualizing young children, by shameless distortions of healthy sexuality,  by seeking profit over providing “choice,” and by promoting abortions no matter what law is broken and no matter what suffering and abuse they facilitate.

Once PP took that leap of active eugenics versus preventative eugenics, it became apparent that abortions are more profitable than handing out free condoms. So they promote and coerce abortion because it is not only good for society, but profitable.  After all, the more money PP makes, the more its ideology can be implemented and spread. Thus profit is a motive, but merely in service to ideology.

It is no surprise that Planned Parenthood would not shy away from stealing in service of their ideology. 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. This is just one city and there is a suspected massive pattern of overbilling in other states. If this fraud is as systemic as it is believed to be, then PP is stealing billions from the taxpayers.

Now is the time to Act! 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. So NOW is the time to act. 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.

The solution is to create mass awareness of the facts about Planned Parenthood. 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 they actually 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 information wherever you see Planned Parenthood being falsely defended.

It’s a simple matter of getting the truth out there. If we don’t, tax payer funding of this horrific organization and in service of this horrific ideology –  will continue to increase.

________________________________________________________________________

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.