This is scary.  Link here.  Seems that George Soros and his friends have concocted a scheme, which they’ve been working on for 5+ years, to manipulate elections in key battleground states.

Two things we know for sure:

1. We’ll never read about this in the MSM.
2. If any conservative people/groups did this, the MSM would work overtime to “expose” the “scandal.”

Full story here.

.

John Kerry voted for it before he voted against it.  Anthony Weiner lied before he told the truth (but only because he had to).  And now Planned Parenthood told the truth in private while lying in public.

What?  PP told the truth?  Say it ain’t so, Joe!  That’s stunning news.  But if they’re lying and truthing at the same time, do they really deserve partial credit?

Earlier today, Live Action released a video in which callers to Planned Parenthood clinics in Indiana actually told the truth.  YIKES!  PP admitted, truthfully, that patients on Medicare need not depend on PP, but can obtain the services they need from other health care providers in their communities.  This during an ongoing national campaign in which PP falsely claims that  poor women in Indiana will lose access to vital health care services if they cannot go to Planned Parenthood.

From the Live Action website:

In an official press release, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards claimed that Indiana’s defunding of Planned Parenthood would “take away health care from thousands of women in Indiana.” Last week, Live Action’s undercover investigators called 16 of the 28 Indiana Planned Parenthood clinics posing as women on Medicaid concerned about where they could receive services if Planned Parenthood’s funding was not restored.

Planned Parenthood staffers at all 16 locations admitted that Medicaid women would still have access to medical care after the defunding. Staffers suggested local health clinics or state-assigned primary care physicians for Medicaid patients: “Your primary care doctor should be able to do [a Well Woman exam,] I mean, that’s what they’re there for,” said a Planned Parenthood in Michigan City, while the Merrillville Planned Parenthood said of a local community health center, “They have the same services we have.”

“According to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, their 28 clinics serve less than 1% of Indiana Medicaid patients, yet they do more than 50% of Indiana abortions,” notes Rose. There are over 800 other Medicaid providers available to these women in the counties with Planned Parenthood clinics alone.”

Click here for more on this story.  Check out the video here:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqLL-v0JpY0

.

Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the US District Court, Southern District of Indiana, has upheld a key provision of an Indiana law that requires requires women to be informed that “human physical life begins when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm.”

The court disagreed with Planned Parenthood’s argument that the statement is “misleading.”  From the court order:

Here, the mandated statement states only a biological fact relating to the development of the living organism; therefore, it may be reasonably read to provide accurate, non-misleading information to the patient.  Under Indiana law, a physician must disclose the facts and risks of a treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would be expected to disclose under like circumstances, and which a reasonable person would want to know.

Well, DUH!

In another part of the order, Judge Walton temporarily suspended a provision of the law that defunds organizations like PP.  The Alliance Defense Fund believes that this injunction is likely to be appealed.  For more details and links, click here.

Update:  Reuters reports that Indiana has already filed the appeal.

Got this note from Senator Bob Corker today.  You might want to check his website’s pro-life page here.

Dear Fletcher,

Knowing of your strong support for protecting the lives of the unborn, I wanted to share with you my decision to cosponsor the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, S.906, and update you on several other pro-life initiatives I recently supported in the Senate.

Since elected to the U.S. Senate, I have consistently voted to prevent taxpayer money from being used, both domestically and internationally, to fund abortions and organizations that perform abortions.  This policy provides critical protection for taxpayers who oppose abortions and do not want to support them financially.

It has been a settled policy since 1976 to prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion. Unfortunately, these restrictions must be renewed each year through a patchwork of various spending bills.  The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would make this long-standing policy permanent through a statutory prohibition and ensure the law is followed government-wide.

Additionally, I believe that the so-called “compromise” in the final version of the health care reform law was insufficient and I voted against final passage. Because of my concerns, I cosponsored S. 877, The Protect Life Act of 2011, which would ensure there is no taxpayer funding for abortion as a result of the new health care law.

You should also know that during consideration of the bill which funds the federal government for the remainder of the year, I voted for an amendment to eliminate federal funds for Planned Parenthood.  Organizations that perform abortions should not receive federal funding.  Unfortunately, the measure failed, but I was able to support a restoration of the ban on government funding of abortions in the District of Columbia. This ban, which had been in place since 1996, was overturned by President Obama in 2009.

Finally, I recently sent a letter with 27 other Senators to Dr. Donald Berwick, the Administrator for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), urging swift reconsideration of its rejection of Indiana’s Medicaid State Plan, which restricts funding to health providers that perform abortions.  In our letter, we declared our support for Indiana’s proposal to prevent taxpayers from subsidizing the operational costs of abortions and for “the right of states to administer their Medicaid programs in a manner consistent with the values and needs of their citizens.”

Please know I stand with you as a strong advocate for the protection of life.  I believe life begins at conception and will consistently vote to protect the lives of the unborn.  For more information about what I’m doing in the Senate to protect the sanctity of life, please visit my website at: http://corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ProtectingTheUnborn.

Sincerely,
Bob Corker
United States Senator

Newswire says Anthony Weiner is resigning.  Not sure why he would do that, really.  After all:

1. Sure, he lied about sex, but so did Bill Clinton, and the Dems thought that was just fine.
2. Clinton lied to a grand jury, which is a crime.  Weiner only lied to us, which is not.
3. Weiner’s colleagues have made lying to us an art form.  They lie about ObamaCare, Iraq, Social Security, deficit spending, the economy, the financial health of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, tea party rallies, Valerie Plame, abortion, …  That’s just off the top of my head.

So what’s the big deal about Weiner’s lying?

This is too funny.  Check out his website.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0

Sex education isn’t the only thing Planned Parenthood (PP) gets wrong.  They also don’t know where our rights come from.

At a rally to support government funding of PP’s abortion business, Sen. Frank Lautenburg stated that pro-life advocates “don’t deserve the freedoms in the Constitution.”  But, being the generous sort of fellow he is, he would “give it to them anyway.”

Did you catch it?  To Sen. Lautenburg, Constitutional rights are granted by Government (i.e., himself and his cronies).  Some people don’t deserve them, and he knows who they are.  But because he’s such a good guy, he will consent to “give” those rights to pro-lifers.  For now, anyway.

Whatever Government “gives,” it can later withhold.  It can grant or deny rights to whomever it chooses.  Lautenberg claims, for himself and his cronies, the power to choose who gets rights and who doesn’t.

It reminds me of a conversation I had with a TV reporter at the University of Indiana.  He pointed to a US flag flying nearby and said that no matter what we believe, “that flag gives all of us the freedom to speak out.”

We’ll give the reporter a D for his civics grade.  Not quite as bad as Sen Lautenberg, who earned an F minus minus.  At least the reporter did not claim for himself the right to grant/deny the rights of others.  But he still didn’t know where our rights come from.  He, too, thought our rights come from Government.

Our founders knew better:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

See the difference?  The Founders recognized that rights come from our Creator.  Not Government.  Not Frank Lautenberg.  No man may take them away.  Governements are instituted by men, not to grant rights, but as an agent to secure rights already granted by “our Creator.”  Big difference.  Men in government are accountable not only to the people, but to the Creator, for the preservation of justice.  Lautenberg and other Alinskyites believe they are accountable to neither.

So, do you still want Government educating your children?

NOTE:  A commenter has brought it to my attention that the article referenced in this posting has been retracted.  Here is the retraction:

Author’s Note: I made a serious error in reporting this column that undermines the conclusion I drew. I compared statistics on contraceptive use from a January 2011 Guttmacher Institute fact sheet to a year 2000 study on the same issue.  However, I did not realize that the 2011 fact sheet derived its statistics from the year 2000 numbers, so my argument was not supported by the data. I am deeply sorry for the error, which invalidates my piece.

First of all, thank you to the commenter for letting us all know of the error.  We always want to get the facts right.  We can’t make rational decisions based on myths and errors.  As Daniel Patrick Moynhan is quoted as saying, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

I must point out,  however, that some of the statements in the article itself are not without merit.  For example, the statement that 54 percent of women who had abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant came directly from a Planned Parenthood information sheet.  It’s still a sobering number for those who claim that handing out condoms to teenagers will make abortion “rare.”  Yes, the statement is based on data gathered in 2000, but Planned Parenthood is still quoting this number today, so we have no reason to doubt that much has changed.  I referenced this in my previous posting on the relationship between contraception use and abortion.

ORIGINAL POSTING:

Even the Left is beginning to see Planned Parenthood’s deception.  Here is an article entitled Busting the Birth-Control Myth, written by Kirsten Powers, a former member of the Clinton administration.

I’ll admit I bought the argument—it makes intuitive sense—and initially opposed cutting off [Planned Parenthood] funding for precisely that reason.

Then I did a little research.

***

It’s unclear whether Planned Parenthood officials simply don’t understand statistics or are so accustomed to having their claims unquestioned that they think if they repeat them often enough, the facts will disappear.

***

… their dishonesty in how they present their organization to the public, along with ignoring basic statistics about their area of expertise, makes you wonder what else they are hiding. It’s also hard to deny that they are at core a blindly ideological organization, not a run-of-the-mill charitable nonprofit.

Entire column here.

Left-wing rhetoric vs. reality: It’s too funny.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71gsnLfsbbM

Check out these two items from newly-elected Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

1. Rand Paul’s first speech on Senate floor.
2. Rand Paul interviewed on ABC TV.

Here’s the Senate speech:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vFo3ZieXZ0

A people free to choose will always choose peace.

Facts are stubborn things.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.

Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You will have opportunities beyond anything we’ve ever known.

Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress.

FAB cameras were on hand when Congressional Democrats prepared to help read the Constitution.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuPQgV8yBM

I guess I should apologize for comparing Democrats to Barney Fife.  Sorry, Barney.

Seriously, it was instructive to hear leftists respond to the reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives:

• Dahlia Lithwick of Slate said reading the Constitution was evidence of a “fetish.”
• Dem. Cong. Jerrold Nadler said reading it was “total nonsense” and “propaganda.”
• MSNBC’s Chris Hayes wondered if there might be something “insidious” about reading it.
• Joy Behar of The Voice wondered if reading the Constitution—once in our lifetime, by the way—might be “getting out of hand.”
• Ezra Klein of the Washington Post said reading it aloud was “a gimmick.”
• E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post lamented treating the Constitution as “the equivalent of sacred scripture.”
• Former (thankfully) Dem. Cong. Phil Hare said “I don’t worry about the Constitution.”

Of course, when they take the oath of office, guess what they promise to do?  Here’s their oath of office (in part):

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; …  So help me God.

Why does the left have so much contempt for the Constitution, particularly it’s limitations on the role and scope of government?  Because the Constitution limits their power to create the socialistic/bureaucratic utopia they dream of.  They can’t get the votes to pass amendments in the legal way—we won’t give away our freedoms voluntarily—so they just pretend it says something else.  Reading the Constitution makes that pretense more difficult.

Insightful op-ed piece by Victor Davis Hanson, regarding California and it’s debt situation.

Yes, we are proud that we have changed the attitude, lifestyle, and demography of the state, made it “green,” and have the highest paid public employees and the most generous welfare system—and do not have to soil our hands with nasty things like farming, oil production, or nuclear power. And now we are broke.

click for more …

In 1848, the United States paid $15 million for California, Arizona and New Mexico and parts of Utah, Nevada, and Colorado (Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).  Somebody call the Mexican government and offer to return California.  They can keep the $15 million.

Wall Street Journal now follows FAB!

Concerning the agreement to extend the current tax rates for 2 years, FAB wrote:

The only good thing about the 2-year extension is that it just postpones the real debate for another 2 years down the road, just in time for the next election cycle.

The Wall Street Journal now agrees:

But if an angry, let-me-be-clear Barack Obama just looked into the cameras and said he’s coming to get you in two years, what rational economic choice would you make? Spend the profit or gains 2011 might produce on new workers, or bury any new income in the backyard until the 2012 presidential clouds clear?

No matter how much economic bump Mr. Obama gets in 2011 from extending the Bush-era tax rates, the 2012 election will be fought over a deep national anxiety that he rightly identifies but misinterprets.

***

In such a high-stakes world, Barack Obama’s obsession with having it out over the tax tables is a vulnerability. His opponent in 2012 should run straight at it.

If the economy improves, Republicans will say we shouldn’t mess with a formula that’s working, which is a message that will resonate with Independents.  However, Obama will be able to convince many voters that he deserves credit for the improvement, anemic though it might be.   He’ll be trying to get voters to maintain one status quo (himself as President) and change another (tax rates), all at the same time.

If the economy does not improve, Obama will be in a world of hurt.

Of course, as I said, maintaining the current tax rates will not improve the economy, but it will at least avoid another insult.  Other factors might help.  (For example, dramatically cutting deficit spending will do a world of good by improving confidence in government.)  Whatever happens, it will be great political theatre.  The danger for Republicans will be if they try to oversell the effects that maintenance of current tax rates will have.

I’m still looking for something else good in this deal.  They apparently gave us all a one-year reduction on Social Security taxes.  Not so good.  It’s just another give-away program that will do little to stimulate the economy, any more than Porkulus I did.  Plus, more deficit spending just depresses even more our confidence in government even more, which is a huge drag on the economy.

Further, raiding the SS fund will put a few more dollars back into the pockets of working people, but it will be (supposedly) stealing it from their own Social Security fund.  I say supposedly, because in reality, there is no SS fund.  Our SS taxes have become a gigantic slush fund that is used by politicians to hide the true amount of deficit spending.  They “borrow” (a.k.a. steal) our SS money (what they can’t borrow from the Chinese) and never pay it back.  If you account for this borrowing/stealing, the deficit is much, much higher than they say it is.  Harry Reid admitted to the thievery when he told HuffPost, “The money doesn’t come out of Social Security. It comes out of the general fund.”

More deficit, less confidence in government, worse economy.  It will improve, but not as much as it could.

They supposedly extended unemployment benefits, but I don’t believe it lets people collect beyond the current 2-year limit.  It just extends the program that allows people to collect up to 2-years, as compared to the normal limit of 26 weeks or so.  As I understand it.

Here’s the one good thing about this process.  If this bill goes down, we can hope the Republicans in the Senate will block every other piece of lame-duck legislation, as they have promised to do.

From Don Feder:

***

What would have happened if we had fought World War II the way we’re fighting the war on Islamic terrorism? What if political correctness guided America in the weeks and months after Pearl Harbor?

1. On December 8, 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt would have come before a joint session of Congress to apologize for the presence of U.S. Marines in Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic earlier in the century, and the Spanish-American War. He would have offered to give the Philippines back to Spain and pay reparations.
2. He would have referred to December 7, 1941 as “a day pretty much like any other and let’s not make a big deal of it” and cautioned that, “I think that at a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then fears can surface, suspicions can surface. We have to make sure that we don’t start turning on each other.” To put the emphasis where it properly belonged, the president would have said that anniversaries of Pearl Harbor would be officially designated National Days of Service.
3. America’s slogan would have become “Remember, Pearl Harbor was no one’s fault.”

More …