Roe v. Wade: Here Today, Maybe Gone Tomorrow Part III

As promised, we begin today’s chapter with a segment of Margaret Sanger’s own writings on her opinions of birth control that include eugenics, abortion, and infanticide. Her ideas were startling, dramatic, and openly unspeakable in her time. Her establishment of the original Planned Parenthood organization was her effort to bring her birth control and pre-birth termination philosophies into the Mainstream in the U.S. This did that and much more.

BIRTH CONTROL OR ABORTION?

By Margaret Sanger: December 3, 1918: In her own words

Family limitation will be practiced. No law has yet been framed that can prevent it. The church has been powerless and the champions of worn-out moral creeds find themselves trying in vain to force all women to become mothers against their wills.
Abundant evidence of the futility of seeking to impose involuntary motherhood upon women is found in the size of the families of the rich, of the well-to-do and of the wage workers of larger earning capacity. The women of these classes long ago refused to be mere brood animals–-usually, they prefer to be voluntary mothers, determining for themselves the number of children they shall have and when they shall have them. Family limitation for them is an accomplished fact.
It is also an accomplished fact with many of the wives of the less highly paid workers. But with the latter, as well as with some of their more fortunate sisters, family limitation takes a far more drastic and too often a terribly dangerous course. The awakened woman of today will not bear unwanted children. She will not bear more children than she can care for. And if she is denied the knowledge of the safe, harmless, scientific methods of Birth Control, she limits her family by means of abortion.
In the very nature of the case, it is impossible to get accurate figures upon the number of abortions performed annually in the United States. It is often said, however, that one in five pregnancies end in abortion. One estimate is that 150,000 occur in the United States each year and that 25,000 women die of the effects of such operations in every twelve months. Dr. William J. Robinson asserts that there are 1,000,000 abortions every year in this country and adds that the estimate is conservative. He quotes Justice John Proctor Clark as saying that there are at least 100,000 in the same length of time in New York City alone. Dr. Max Hirsch, a famous authority quotes an opinion that there are 2,000,000 abortions in the United States every year! “I believe” declares Dr. Hirsch, “that I may say without exaggeration that absolutely spontaneous or unprovoked abortions are extremely rare, that a vast majority–I should estimate it at 80 percent–have a criminal origin.”

“Our examinations have informed us that the largest number of abortions are performed on married women. This fact brings us to the conclusion that contraceptive measures among the upper classes and the practice of abortion among the lower class are the real means employed to regulate the number of offspring.”

The question, then, is not whether family limitation should be practiced. It is being practiced; it has long been practiced and it will always be practiced. The question now is whether it is to be attained by normal, scientific Birth Control methods or by the abnormal, often dangerous, surgical operation. That is the question which the church, the state, the moralist and most of all, the woman herself, must face. The knowledge of Birth Control methods may for a time be denied to the woman of the working class, but those who are responsible for denying it to her, and she herself, should understand clearly the dangers to which she is exposed by the dark age laws which force her into the hands of the abortionist. To understand the more clearly what these dangers are, and to realize the more fully how much better it would be to avoid them, it is first necessary that women should know something of the processes of conception, the prevention of which frees them of all risk of having to resort to abortion.

There is no doubt that women are apt to look upon abortion as of little consequence and to treat it accordingly. An abortion is as important a matter as a confinement and requires as much attention as the birth of a child at its full term.
“The immediate dangers of abortion,” says Dr. J. Clifton Edgar, in his book “The Practice of Obstetrics,” “are hemorrhage, retention of an adherent placenta, sepsis, tetanus, perforation of the uterus. They also cause sterility, anemia, malignant diseases, displacements, neurosis, and endometritis.”

In plain, everyday language, in an abortion, there is always a very serious risk to the health and often to the life of the patient. It is only the women of wealth who can afford to give an abortion proper care and treatment both at the time of the operation and afterward. These women often escape any serious consequences from its occurrence. The women whose incomes are limited and who must continue at work before they have recovered from the effects of an abortion are the great army of sufferers. It is among such that the deaths due to abortion usually ensue. It is these, too, who are most often forced to resort to such operations.

Sanger couched her teachings in the thoughts regarding birth control. As you read in Chapters I and II, birth control itself and even public discussions of birth control were actually illegal in the U.S. in the early 1900’s. Then doctors were allowed to discuss birth control privately with patients. Abortions were rampant, (see numbers listed below in Sanger’s own writings) but their numbers were kept hidden and were just projections rather than actual. But it is fair to say there were millions of abortions before Roe v. Wade made abortions legal throughout the U.S. and states could no longer block them.

Proof or Conjecture?

The stories surrounding Planned Parenthood and its work today are many and varied. Just as is the case of the history of Margaret Sanger and her work, these Planned Parenthood stories contain claims and acknowledgment of abortions performed and other services that range from one spectrum to the opposite.

Getting factual verification of Planned Parenthood’s real intentions is extremely difficult. “Facts” are everywhere and are all over the place. But the determination of its primary purpose for existence is fairly easy to do: “Follow the Money.” Here from Planned Parenthood is their actual “Money In — Money Out” report for five years: (click on the link to see or download)

PPSTATS5YRS

Looking at their income shown this report, American taxpayers funded $2.72 Billion for the previous 5 years.

We leave it to you to examine their numbers of cases and dollars allocated to those. However, here are some thoughts to ponder:

  •  1,628,550 abortions funded and provided for in years 2011-2016
  • There are 665 total Planned Parenthood Centers that provide federally funded women’s health services
  • Planned Parenthood offers services to 2.4 million people a year
  • That 2.4 million number includes women, men, and children
  • Planned Parenthood administered 321,384 abortions in 2017.

According to Planned Parenthood’s own numbers, if the $500 million in taxpayer funds per year were NOT funded, the already existing over 13,000+ non-abortion providing Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) service sites and Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) with fewer taxpayer dollars could easily and more effectively continue to provide comprehensive primary and preventive health care to even more people than the 665 Planned Parenthood centers do today.

Controversy

The videos provided by hidden cameras the last few years in which Planned Parenthood personnel discuss how they negotiate prices for baby body parts that result from abortions. Apparently, this practice is common among their healthcare centers. This practice is not only reprehensible, but it is also illegal. Planned Parenthood announced after several of these secret videos became public they have suspended the practice of selling baby body parts obtained by abortions.

Summary

I think it is safe to say that Planned Parenthood was established, operated initially, and operates today to chiefly provide birth control and abortions primarily to federally funded individuals. Our understanding is that Planned Parenthood bills Medicaid for services provided by their clinics for patients who are Medicaid eligible. They even will retroactively enroll those not already enrolled in Medicaid to get their procedures performed before acceptance into Medicaid are paid for. This money paid through Medicaid is in addition to the money already paid to Planned Parenthood by the federal government as part of grants.

So is Planned Parenthood an entity that exists primarily to perform abortions for economically disadvantaged people? Are all (or some) of these abortions performed simply to stop the generational proliferation of “undesirables” as Margaret Sanger spoke of in her early writings? Or is Planned Parenthood operating to primarily offer healthcare information, advice, birth control, and disease testing from low-income Americans?

Oddly enough, abortion’s political discussion reaches to even to the United States Supreme Court. Senior Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg weighed in more than a decade ago, saying, “Frankly,” said Ginsburg in July 2009, “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. The great added blessing of Roe: Not only could it give women the “right” to abortion, but it could open the way for the federal government, via Medicaid, to fund abortions of children in undesired populations.” (There’s that “undesirable” reference again — this time from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice)

That assessment by Ginsburg was provided in a July 7, 2009 piece in the New York Times Magazine, titled, “The Place of Women on the Court.” And for 25 years, succeeding a pro-life justice named Byron White, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has held the Planned Parenthood seat on the nation’s high court, where she has fought for the hopes and dreams of Margaret Sanger’s organization. In fact, she has done so in ways more in keeping with Sanger than liberals would care to admit. Sanger wanted Planned Parenthood, whose clinics are disproportionately located near African-American neighborhoods, to achieve precisely what Ginsburg alluded to. There were certain populations that Sanger badly didn’t want too many of.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to change Title X federal funding rules and stop subsidizing businesses that provide abortions is drawing widespread praise from the faith community. The rule, which previously was in place under President Reagan, is simple: The hundreds of millions of dollars of annual Title X funding will go only to family planning centers that don’t provide or refer for abortion. That means all of the abortion businesses that have received federal funding and used it for rent, maintenance, staffing, utilities, and advertising – but not actual abortion costs – will be left out. The proposal, after a time of public comment, will become final. The change is being filed with the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure compliance” with laws that prohibit federal funds from going toward abortions. Tax dollars spent on family planning services, including birth control, STD testing and cancer screenings will not be cut, officials said. But the change will drop a requirement that Title X grant recipients provide abortion counseling to patients.

I think it is highly doubtful that in the Planned Parenthood discussions we will ever agree on exactly what the organization is actually doing: apparently all of the above, or at least in part. Whether or not the U.S. government should be involved with direct funding is an entirely different question.

Please note in this discussion, we have not attacked abortions, those who have had abortions or been a part of abortions, nor discussed the pros and cons of the practice. Abortions have existed in humanity for as long as women and men have existed. My guess is the population is close to evenly split between supporting and rejecting abortions in society. For every person who adamantly supports abortion, there is a person who is adamantly against abortion.

Politics, unfortunately, plays a major role in this discussion, primarily because of federal funding.

In closing, there are several questions regarding abortion that have yet to be answered:

  1. According to Roe v. Wade’s Supreme Court interpretation, American women cannot be prevented from having abortions. Should abortions be underwritten by federal tax dollars?
  2. When does life begin: at conception or at birth?
  3. What happens if at some point scientists prove factually that life begins at conception and that all the abortions have (as defined by law) actually been taking a life?
  4. If life doesn’t begin until birth, why don’t those who are pregnant say “I’m having a fetus” instead of “I’m having a baby?”

Everyone in this discussion has an opinion. Those with opinions have the freedom to share their opinions with everyone.

I wonder (if they could speak) what the fetus (or baby) would have to say about abortion if they were given a chance?

Play

Roe v. Wade: Here Today, Maybe Gone Tomorrow — Part II

Yesterday in Part I we began the discussion about abortion in America. But what we have yet to discuss is who the players were in establishing abortion in the U.S. and its current perspectives among Americans. Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood that is the purveyor of most of the abortions performed in America today. The organization has come under scrutiny the past few years as members of its clinic management have been caught on tape discussing disposal of aborted fetuses.

But let’s not go down that road in this discussion. Let’s first get a glimpse of who Margaret Sanger really was.

The Founder

If you conduct an internet search titled “Margaret Sanger,” many stories pop up. One of the first is her published biography from biography.com. The biography of Sanger from that site appears below. It’s important to remember this version as we move forward:

Born Margaret Higgins on September 14, 1879, in Corning, New York, Margaret Sanger was one of 11 children born into a Roman Catholic working-class Irish American family. Her mother, Anne, had several miscarriages, and Margaret believed that all of these pregnancies took a toll on her mother’s health and contributed to her early death at the age of 40 (some reports say 50). The family lived in poverty as her father, Michael, an Irish stonemason, preferred to drink and talk politics than earn a steady wage.

Seeking a better life, Sanger attended Claverack College and Hudson River Institute in 1896. She went on to study nursing at White Plains Hospital four years later. In 1902, she married William Sanger, an architect. The couple eventually had three children together.

Sanger started her campaign to educate women about sex in 1912 by writing a newspaper column called “What Every Girl Should Know.” She also worked as a nurse on the Lower East Side, at the time a predominantly poor immigrant neighborhood. Through her work, Sanger treated a number of women who had undergone back-alley abortions or tried to self-terminate their pregnancies. Sanger objected to the unnecessary suffering endured by these women, and she fought to make birth control information and contraceptives available. She also began dreaming of a “magic pill” to be used to control pregnancy. “No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother,” Sanger said.

Rather than face a possible five-year jail sentence, Sanger fled to England. While there, she worked in the women’s movement and researched other forms of birth control, including diaphragms, which she later smuggled back into the United States. She had separated from her husband by this time, and the two later divorced. Embracing the idea of free love, Sanger had affairs with psychologist Havelock Ellis and writer H. G. Wells.

Sanger returned to the United States in October 1915, after charges against her had been dropped. She began touring to promote birth control, a term that she coined. In 1916, she opened the first birth control clinic in the United States. Sanger and her staff, including her sister Ethel, were arrested during a raid of the Brooklyn clinic nine days after it opened. They were charged with providing information on contraception and fitting women for diaphragms. Sanger and her sister spent 30 days in jail for breaking the Comstock law. Later appealing her conviction, she scored a victory for the birth control movement. The court wouldn’t overturn the earlier verdict, but it made an exception in the existing law to allow doctors to prescribe contraception to their female patients for medical reasons. Around this time, Sanger also published her first issue of The Birth Control Review. In 1921, Sanger established the American Birth Control League, a precursor to today’s Planned Parenthood Federation of America. She served as its president until 1928. In 1923, while with the league, she opened the first legal birth control clinic in the United States. The clinic was named the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau. Also around this time, Sanger married for her second husband, oil businessman J. Noah H. Slee. He provided much of the funding for her efforts for social reform. Wanting to advance her cause through legal channels, Sanger started the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control in 1929. The committee sought to make it legal for doctors to freely distribute birth control. One legal hurdle was overcome in 1936 when the U.S. Court of Appeals allowed for birth control devices and related materials to be imported into the country.For all of her advocacy work, Sanger was not without controversy. She has been criticized for her association with eugenics, a branch of science that seeks to improve the human species through selective mating. As grandson Alexander Sanger, chair of the International Planned Parenthood Council, explained, “She believed that women wanted their children to be free of poverty and disease, that women were natural eugenicists, and that birth control, which could limit the number of children and improve their quality of life, was the panacea to accomplish this.” Still, Sanger held some views that were common at the time, but now seem abhorrent, including support of sterilization for the mentally ill and mentally impaired. Despite her controversial comments, Sanger focused her work on one basic principle: “Every child should be a wanted child.”
That biography of Sanger seems fairly benign — especially in light of much of what we have “heard” about Sanger through the years as detailed by Pro-Life advocates. There are other accounts of Sanger’s history that contradict much of what you just read. Here’s a version that throughout includes quotes from Sanger herself:

(Anne Barbeau Gardiner) In her works Woman and the New Race, Pivot of Civilization, and My Fight for Birth Control, Margaret Sanger offers a range of justifications for killing “unwanted children.” This is no surprise considering how she reacts when she witnesses an act of violence against an infant: “I saw a sickly baby in the arms of a terrified woman whose drunken husband had thrown the wailing, naked infant into the snow,” she recounts, and “I remember having keen sympathy with that man!” His wife had given birth to eleven children, six of them living, and the last “evidently had eczema” and “whined night and day,” so the situation was just “too much” for the father, and “out of the door into the snow the nuisance went!” The justification Sanger offers is purely subjective: “desperate for want of sleep and quiet,” the father’s “nerves overcame him.”

Infanticide is simply ridding oneself of an intolerable “nuisance.” This passage demonstrates Sanger’s pitiless view of nascent life and shows how fitting it is that she should be the founder of Planned Parenthood, today the chief purveyor of abortions in the United States. In another place she remarks, “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” She is remembered for her fight to legalize birth control, but a close reading of Sanger’s work shows that she saw birth control, abortion, and infanticide as differing only in degree, not in kind. They were points on the same continuum.

Sanger tells of a recurring nightmare of hers: she dreamed that “mechanical, automaton-like crowds were walking, walking, walking, always in the opposite direction” to her and crowding her to the curb, and then suddenly these people turned into “mice; they even smelt like mice.” The dream reveals her sense of superiority to the masses, who turn out to be vermin. When she sets up the Clinical Research Bureau in Brooklyn, she observes pointedly that she will be using people instead of mice: it will be “a nucleus for research, a laboratory, as it were, dealing with human beings instead of with white mice.”  She refers to the Chinese as breeding “with the rapidity and irresponsibility of flies” and compares most American women to cattle, asking if “any modern stockbreeder” would “permit the deterioration of his livestock” as Americans permit and even “encourage” the deterioration of their race by misguided charities.

In 1871, Darwin tried to show, in his Descent of Man, that humans did not differ fundamentally from beasts and that human morality had evolved from the social instincts of brutes. Between 1871 and 1930, a Darwinist worldview arose in Europe, according to which humans should be bred like animals for the sake of evolutionary progress, and “the destruction of the less well-endowed” be encouraged to “win space for the expansion” of superior stock. This was Margaret Sanger’s worldview; witness her frequent use of the word unfit for those she thought should be sterilized, aborted, or left to die.

In her campaign for birth control, Sanger spoke of “the evolution of birth control from infanticide, through abortion, to modern methods of scientific and harmless prevention.” But since birth control was supposed to replace infanticide and abortion in her scheme, it had to be foolproof. She tells us that women around 1920 were constantly asking her, regarding birth control, “Is it certain? Will it prevent absolutely?” “Yes,” she would answer, “there are sure methods, and the doubts raised about the certainty of contraceptives come from uninformed doctors and neighbors.”
Although the law, she added, forbade her to name the failsafe methods, she could say that they had “stood the test of certainty” in Holland, France, England, and even among the wealthy in the United States; witness their falling birthrates in the past quarter-century.
After giving such unqualified assurances to women during the 1920s, Sanger flatly contradicts herself in My Fight for Birth Control in 1931. Now she admits that the “need for reliable methods has been far greater and more extended than the ability on the part of the medical profession or science to supply them” and that “biologists and biochemists are now at work perfecting the science of contraception.”  So birth control offers no absolute “certainty” after all. So what happens when contraceptives fail and women are faced–to use Sanger’s term–with “involuntary motherhood?” She explains that “nearly all” working-class women fall into two groups in such a crisis: the first group will “find refuge in abortion,” while the second will be “hopelessly” resigned. The better choice, she declares, is abortion, for those “in whom the feminine urge to freedom is strongest choose the abortionist,” while the others bring children to birth “hoping that they will be born dead or die.” Thus, according to Sanger, nearly all working-class women wish their unborn children dead, but only some of them act on that wish. She approves heartily of those who choose abortion because she says they follow an irresistible “urge” to guard their liberty: women are driven to defy “church and state,” she exclaims, by “the strongest force” in their nature, by an “absolute, elemental, inner urge” of the “feminine spirit.”
That seems to be a bit different from the bio above taken from biography.com. But there are many other versions of Sanger’s life including this from Stella Morabito, a well-known senior contributor at The Federalist. In the first sentence of this article, Morabito uses the word “eugenicist” describing Sanger. To better understand Sanger and her prespective on this topic, here’s the definition of Eugenics: the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).”

 

(Stella Morabito) The passionate eugenicist (Sanger) wished to rid America of its “idiots” and “imbeciles” and “morons” as part of her crowning vision for “race improvement.” The Planned Parenthood matron lamented America’s “race of degenerates.” The nation’s landscape needed to be purged of its “human weeds” and “the dead weight of human waste.” Sanger shared the view of humanity held by another Supreme Court progressive icon, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who declared that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Margaret Sanger maintained that “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.” Progressives today dare not speak of Sanger’s May 1926 speech to a rally of the women’s branch of the KKK in Silverlake, New Jersey, or of her work on the “Negro Project,” or of her December 10, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, stating (in a statement disputed by liberals): “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
America, according to Planned Parenthood’s founder, must limit these lamentable populations, and she was willing to take big steps to make that happen, including a special kind of segregation. In her 1922 book, The Pivot of Civilization, Sanger urged that “every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives.” But even then, this surely wasn’t enough: “Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem.” What to do then? Well, if a nudge wouldn’t work, then coercion would: “we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.”
These “defective delinquents” were a “menace.” America needed to “become fully cognizant of the burden of the imbecile upon the whole human race.” Funds should be made available, she counseled in 1922, “by hundreds of millions of dollars, to the care and segregation of men, women, and children who never should have been born.”

How grand it would be if Uncle Sam could fund the means to limit the reproduction of these unsavory populations. After Sanger’s death, her legacy lived on in Planned Parenthood.

Fast forward to the 1990s, the era of the Clintons. In 1992, Ron Weddington, one of the abortion attorneys in the Roe v. Wade decision, fired off a letter to Bill Clinton urging sharper measures to limit the birth of America’s defectives: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country,” wrote Weddington. “The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies.” For an example of responsible reproduction, Ron Weddington pointed to Bill and Hillary. He told the president-elect: “You and Hillary are a perfect example. Could either of you have gone to law school and achieved anything close to what you have if you had three or four more children before you were 20? No! You waited until you were established in your 30s to have one child. That is what sensible people do.…”

“It’s time to officially recognize that people are going to have sex and what we need to do as a nation is prevent as much disease and as many poor babies as possible. Condoms alone won’t do it. Depo-Provera, Norplant and the new birth control injection being developed in India are not a complete answer…. Even if we make birth control as ubiquitous as sneakers and junk food, there will still be unplanned pregnancies. Thus, the ongoing need for abortion — lots and lots of it — to reduce the undesirables.” Weddington personally had done his part, boasting to Clinton: “I was co-counsel in Roe v. Wade, [and] have sired zero children and one fetus, the abortion of which was recently recounted by my ex-wife in her book.… I had a vasectomy in 1969 and have never had one moment of regret.” Ron and his wife, Sarah, divorced, bequeathing their gift to the world: zero-population growth (and one aborted baby) from their marriage. Ron must have felt slighted when Planned Parenthood feted his wife (but not him) with its highest honor, its coveted Sanger Award — a grace also bestowed on Bill Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And most of all, Weddington must have been thrilled when Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the high court the next year. Ruth seemed to be channeling Ron as well as the ghost of Maggie Sanger when she preached the no-population-growth gospel to the New York Times in July 2009: “we don’t want too many of them types.”

Summary

What we see in today’s story is the drastic differences in the related history of Margaret Sanger: total difference analysis by these different historian writers. Why is that?

I’m not going to answer that question today. What we ARE going to do is prepare you for “Roe v. Wade: Here Today, Maybe Gone Tomorrow — Part III” tomorrow. It will be the wrap-up of this story and will consist almost entirely of Sanger’s own words without any writer narrative added. It will include the when, how, and why of her establishment of Planned Parenthood as it looked when it began operations and how it looks today. We’ll also add some statistics, some of which will startle you.

Finally, in tomorrow’s summary, you’ll receive some personal analysis of this entire matter: abortion in America. It will be totally perspective and opinion. We do that from time to time here. But when we do, you are always informed that it is opinion. We’re all entitled to that.

Thanks for being here!

Dan

Play

Roe v. Wade: Here Today, Maybe Gone Tomorrow — Part I

The Brett Kavanaugh hoopla of the past few weeks has re-lit the fires of the abortion debate. The Drive-by media along with others on the left propped up the false narrative in attacking the Supreme Court nominee that if confirmed, he would “probably” cast the deciding vote in any case before the Court regarding the overturn of Roe v. Wade. That threat rang totally hollow to those who understand the law and exactly what Roe did: it simply ruled in an appealed lower court finding allowing states to prohibit abortions. Roe v Wade with SCOTUS confirmation means that states do NOT have that right.

The truth about an overturn of Roe is this: should that ever occur, in doing so the Court is NOT prohibiting abortion, rather simply returning the right of the legality of abortion to the states. Abortions would remain legal in states that deemed it to be legal.

TNN is going to take this time of discussing abortion to look at its American roots. That means Planned Parenthood (PP) and its founder, too. There are many questions about PP’s purpose in its establishment and current operations: especially in light of taxpayer-funded grants from the federal government of about $500 million per year. 

This examination will be fact-based, will contain actual words from PP’s founder on the subject, and will look at statistics. We do NOT tell our partners what to think, rather give different facts for use in establishing educated positions on important issues. There is no doubt abortion in America is an important issue.

This story is a multiple chapter, fact-finding mission. Today we detail just how abortion came to be so common and so in demand in the U.S. 

Throughout this study, you will see and hear stories from medical professionals and from several who have experienced abortion personally. In tomorrow’s offering — Chapter II — you will meet Planned Parenthood’s founder and will read and hear from her personal writings her perspective on birth control, abortion, and even infanticide. 

None of this is for political purposes. There is no agenda here. This is to shine a light on every aspect of abortion, trying to keep it as emotionless as possible.

It is very difficult to think and speak objectively when emotions run so high in such a conversation. We at TruthNewsNet.org know just how great an issue abortion is. We can only imagine how many Americans have experienced all that accompanies abortion. But one thing we DO know: it affects millions, impacts millions more, and is probably the most contentious political issue in the U.S. today. To that end, it is important that ALL understand every aspect of such a critical issue so as to make informed decisions if and whenever faced with abortion personally, in one’s family, or among friends or relatives. 

Abortion’s American Origins and Stated Purposes

During the 1800s, all surgical procedures, including abortion, were extremely risky. Hospitals were not common, antiseptics were unknown, and even the most respected doctors had only primitive medical educations. Without today’s current technology, maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth were extraordinarily high. The dangers from abortion were similar to the dangers from other surgeries that were not outlawed.

As scientific methods began to dominate medical practice, and technologies were developed to prevent infection, medical care, on the whole, became much safer and more effective. But by this time, the vast majority of women who needed abortions had no choice but to get them from illegal practitioners without these medical advances at their disposal. The “back alley” abortion remained a dangerous, often deadly procedure, while areas of legally sanctioned medicine improved dramatically.

The strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent “untrained” practitioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees.

The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the principal procedures that kept these competitors in business. Rather than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American Medical Association (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and dangerous. By 1910 all but one state had criminalized abortion except where necessary, in a doctor’s judgment, to save the woman’s life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a “physicians-only” practice.

The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services.

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year. Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.

Between 1967 and 1973 one-third of the states liberalized or repealed their criminal abortion laws. However, the right to have an abortion in all states was only made available to American women in 1973 when the Supreme Court struck down the remaining restrictive state laws with its ruling in Roe v. Wade.

The Roe case arose out of a Texas law that prohibited legal abortion except to save a woman’s life. At that time, most other states had laws similar to the one in Texas. Those laws forced large numbers of women to resort to illegal abortions.

Jane Roe, a 21-year-old pregnant woman, represented all women who wanted abortions but could not get them legally and safely. Henry Wade was the Texas Attorney General who defended the law that made abortions illegal.

After hearing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans’ right to privacy included the right of a woman to decide whether to have children and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision without state interference.

After Roe v. Wade

The reaction to Roe was swift. Supporters of legal abortion rejoiced and generally felt their battle was won. However, others faulted the Court for the decision. Those opposed to legal abortion immediately began working to prevent any federal or state funding for abortion and to undermine or limit the effect of the decision.

Some turned to measures directly aimed at disrupting clinics where abortions were being provided. Their tactics have included demonstrating in front of abortion clinics, harassing people trying to enter, vandalizing clinic property, and blocking access to clinics.

As time passed, the level of anti-abortion violence escalated. Increasingly, clinic bombings, physical attacks, and even murders endanger abortion providers and create a hostile environment for women seeking abortions.

Abortion: Second Thoughts

Initially, the framework of Roe v. Wade was the basis by which the constitutionality of state abortion laws was determined. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has begun to allow more restrictions on abortion.

For instance, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 established that states can restrict pre-viability abortions. Restrictions can be placed on first trimester abortions in ways that are not medically necessary, as long as the restrictions do not place an “undue burden” on women seeking abortion services.

Many states now have restrictions in place such as parental involvement, mandatory waiting periods, and biased counseling. Only the requirement that a woman involves her spouse in her decision was disallowed.

Timeline of Abortion in America

1821: Connecticut passes the first law in the United States barring abortions after “quickening.”

1860: Twenty states have laws limiting abortion.

1965Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court decision strikes down a state law that prohibited giving married people information, instruction, or medical advice on contraception.

1967: Colorado is the first state to liberalize its abortion laws.

1970: Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington liberalize abortion laws, making abortion available at the request of a woman and her doctor.

1972Eisenstadt v. Baird Supreme Court decision establishes the right of unmarried people to use contraceptives.

1973Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision strikes down state laws that made abortion illegal.

1976: Congress adopts the first Hyde Amendment barring the use of federal Medicaid funds to provide abortions to low-income women.

1977: A revised Hyde Amendment is passed allowing states to deny Medicaid funding except in cases of rape, incest, or “severe and long-lasting” damage to the woman’s physical health.

1991Rust v. Sullivan upholds the constitutionality of the 1988 “gag rule” which prohibits doctors and counselors at clinics which receive federal funding from providing their patients with information about and referrals for abortion.

1992Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey reaffirms the “core” holdings of Roe that women have a right to abortion before fetal viability, but allows states to restrict abortion access so long as these restrictions do not impose an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions.

1994: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act is passed by Congress with a large majority in response to the murder of Dr. David Gunn. The FACE Act forbids the use of “force, a threat of force or physical obstruction” to prevent someone from providing or receiving reproductive health services. The law also provides for both criminal and civil penalties for those who break the law.

2000Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I) rules that the Nebraska statute banning so-called “partial-birth abortion” is unconstitutional for two independent reasons: the statute lacks the necessary exception for preserving the health of the woman, and the definition of the targeted procedures is so broad as to prohibit abortions in the second trimester, thereby being an “undue burden” on women. This effectively invalidates 29 of 31 similar statewide bans.

2000: Food and Drug Administration approves mifepristone (RU-486) as an option in abortion care for very early pregnancy.

2003: A federal ban on abortion procedures is passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The National Abortion Federation immediately challenges the law in court and is successful in blocking enforcement of the law for its members.

2004: NAF wins a lawsuit against federal abortion ban. Justice Department appeals rulings by three trial courts against a ban.

Summary

This may have been tiring to read: it’s very specific and very detailed. But before we can even attempt to discuss all of the details of an issue as it pertains to life today, we must be confident we have factually examined details of its past.

Many will question the wisdom of even attempting such a task in discussing such a controversial American experience. Wise or not, abortion is something that impacts tens of millions in the U.S. every year. No, there is no reputable report claiming tens of millions of abortions are performed in the U.S. annually. But abortion impacts far more than just the woman who has that abortion.

This conversation will include the ancillary impacts on immediate and extended family members. But even before we get to that specific discussion, we are going to share and discuss all of the elements that brought us to the abortion historical point we are in today. And to do that, we must first listen to the founder of Planned Parenthood or PP. PP today performs more abortions than any other abortion provider in the U.S. PP receives significant federal grant dollars, though maintaining those taxpayer dollars do NOT directly or indirectly fund abortion procedures, but only fund women’s healthcare initiatives.

This series of stories is probably going to be something you want to share, even download and print for those in your family you feel need to understand all we know about abortion history, its impact on the nation, how we got to this point, and where we are headed with it.

To that end, we will post a link at the bottom of the final story in this series that you can use to download the entire series.

We at TNN promise you to always give you facts and specific information so that YOU can make decisions about the important issues we and our family members either face today or may face tomorrow. There is nothing worse than being confronted by serious and often life-changing circumstances and not either knowing how to deal with them or where to go to get answers.

Thanks for joining us today.

Stay tuned: Chapter II tomorrow!

Play

The “Wrap-up Smear”

We all have wondered how for the past years whenever attacks come from those on the Left, they seem to be coordinated. Most Americans when seeing this happen over and over again have only two options in their determination of what is happening. One is to simply believe what those on the Left are saying is true. The only other believable explanation is that there is some liberal conspiracy designed and implemented. The latter seems unrealistic because there are so many involved in the process, it would take immense efforts to coordinate with everyone to be on the same page. But it seems that there is now a third option.

America looked on as the angst from the Left reached a fever pitch during the Kavanaugh confirmation process. That angst revealed itself in well-coordinated demonstrations in multiple cities but especially in Washington D.C. Protestors stormed the Capitol, famously confronting Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in an elevator. That confrontation was documented on national television. Was it planned and coordinated? (Read on for the answer) Senate Judiciary hearings were flooded with protestors who in a coordinated fashion consistently interrupted proceedings by screaming and then visibly being dragged out of the hearing by Capitol police. Demonstrations outside the Capitol and Supreme Court involved hundreds and even thousands of protestors. What was going on?

Planned or Not

Immediately after the Saturday afternoon vote in which Judge Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed through a Senate vote, it was revealed that many of those protestors were actually paid to protest. The obvious financial “backer” was globalist George Soros who, it was later revealed, actually through several of the non-profit organizations he funds, DID pay for protestors regarding this confirmation process. How many? I doubt we’ll ever know.

You have seen and heard many conservative radio and television talk show hosts point out that the media have adopted the role of being the second branch or arm of the Democrat Party. It has been uncanny to watch MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, C-SPAN, the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and other news outlets in seemingly coordinated fashion parrot the same talking points over and over again. They all have been unified around one cause: to discredit Brett Kavanaugh while “reporting” anything that looked bad about the nominee, saying anything no matter what it took to block his confirmation. Before Kavanaugh and certainly going forward, this approach has been and will be to perpetuate daily criticism of all things Trump.

How did all this media uproar and furor become unanimous in content and timing in its presentation? Was it really planned and coordinated? Is there some vast conspiracy that involves all the liberal media in cahoots with the Democrat Party?

The answer to the last two of those questions is “yes” and “yes.” The answer to the first is “Wrap-up Smear,” a process used by Democrats for a long time in fighting against conservative legislation and appointments. Even though it has been in operation for decades, in the brutal and far-reaching drive by the Left to kill the Kavanaugh confirmation, its identity and its uses slipped through the carefully devised and maintained veil of secrecy hiding the Left’s operational guidelines so no conservatives know how it’s used.

Carefully watch and listen to Pelosi, Blumenthal and other politicians separated by reports from liberal media reporters. Nancy Pelosi in a press conference actually exposed the Democrat coordinated plan and tells how they use it:

Conspiracy

Any conservative who dares to call tactics of the Left “conspiratorial” is immediately excoriated by all on the Left. The power of this tactic so successfully used again and again has been fueled in the past by its anonymity. With the Kavanaugh hearings, this tactic of “Wrap Up Smear” has been exposed to the World to the Left’s horror. Remember this: the one thing in which evil and darkness cannot exist is light. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings and associated news hysteria have shined the light on this conspiratorial process used by the Left. I did not make that up, and I am not some conspiracy nut job.

I liken this current political process employed by the Democrat Party to what in my city we experience with a powerhouse high school football team. Evangel Christian Academy is a very small private school (less than 400 students) that has amassed 14 state high school championships while playing in the Louisiana High School Athletic Association’s public school category. There are dozens of Evangel alumnae who have played in the NFL and are playing right now at the NCAA Division 1 level who are probably headed to the NFL.

One can imagine the furor targeted at this small private school’s football success from public high school coaches and school administrators. Even some other private school administration and sports personnel hate their success as well. For years, this public school organization has systematically endeavored to push Evangel and at least one other private school in the state from its ranks. Evangel and this other school have weathered the outrage and are still at it.

What’s the big allegation from coaches and administrators from Louisiana public high schools? Evangel is successful they must be cheating. But in more than 20 years, Evangel has been the most investigated high school in LHSAA’s history, according to its longtime executive director. And Evangel has never been found cheating. Still, the allegations by others continue annually and become deafening about September 1. That’s when football season starts!

How does this analogy compare to the “Wrap Up Smear” of the U.S. political Left? Both have the same fundamental premise as their foundation: “We will NOT change our operations to compete with others by working to rise to the same level in which they play. Instead, we will just go out in the public and make unfounded allegations of cheating against our opponents. That is much easier than working harder and working smarter, and surely will achieve the same results.” But they never do.

But they HAVE worked in the past. But how?

Their success draws from the same fuel used in peoples’ animus against that private high school. Rather than find and implement the same or similar processes used for a couple of decades by Evangel’s coaches in preparing players in whatever ways necessary to pick up 14 championship trophies, they opt to verbally denigrate Evangel, perpetrating the thought, “If they’re winning this much, it must be because they cheat.” That effort has not worked to stop Evangel Christian Academy. It has not worked for America’s political Leftists either. But as in the case in Louisiana among public school administrators and coaches, the allegations continue from the Left against conservatives.

By the way, what’s the definition of insanity? “Doing the same thing, again and again, expecting different results.” Doing so has not worked in Louisiana, has not and will not work for political Leftists in the U.S.

Should Conservatives be Afraid?

No. Conservatives should be invigorated! The exposure of these tactics prove several points:

  • Democrats and their minions are running scared. And as most know, it really is hard to make good decisions when one is afraid. It daily becomes more obvious the Left is NOT making good decisions;
  • When one knows for certain who their enemies are, it is much easier to plan and implement specific responses aimed directly at a specific target. Conservatives now know for certain where their arrows need to fly;
  • This craziness of the Left being revealed to all of America proves that there really IS a conspiracy in American politics — and that conspiracy is NOT from conservatives. There is a real conspiracy on the left that includes Democrats AND the drive-by media.

What are the opposites of “Fear?” “Trust” and “Faith.” Conservatives in government, for the most part, trust the current administration — especially now that this leftist conspiracy has been exposed. Further, those same conservatives have stronger faith than ever before to believe all of the positive information being revealed every day about the good things happening for Americans of every socioeconomic sector. And those Americans know for certain these good things are direct results of the Donald Trump Administration.

EVERY Leftist is horrified by Trump Administration success.

Summary

As promised, today’s story is the first that we will share this week detailing the falsehoods that have been sold to the American public by Democrats and others from the Left. As the clock ticks and pages of the calendar turn toward the midterm elections, two things are critical:

  1. Conservatives MUST get out to vote. Not doing so will give Democrats control of the House of Representatives and possibly control of several Senate seats currently occupied by Republicans. And even today the Democrats along with their watchdog leftist Media are promoting the investigation and impeachment of Brett Kavanaugh if they win the House. Though Dems know such an attempt would not be successful in unseating Justice Kavanaugh, their hope is to keep their base stirred up so as to ensure maximum numbers of votes;
  2. Every Republican MUST engage in understanding how critical it is for all to fight back against the tyranny of the Left is trying to turn our government toward Socialism. Simply understanding it is NOT sufficient. All must engage in this process of educating everyone within our circles of influence. “You shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.”

I really do not think a midterm blue wave is coming. But I know for certain the Left is energized in a way I have not witnessed in my lifetime. Knowing the truth is one thing. Acting on that truth is something else and is much more important. If conservative Americans don’t act on these truths, knowing the truth is really meaningless.

Remember the story above about coaches and administrators from those Louisiana public schools holding such anger for that little private high school? They though knowing what’s wrong and how to successfully address the problem by stepping up THEIR game, watching their opponent and learning the truth about the success in achieving those 14 state championships, they simply stand back and mount a constant verbal attack using hollow allegations wrapped in anger and hatred. Democrats doing so in the Kavanaugh case did not stop his confirmation to SCOTUS. But unless conservatives act, they may just be successful in the midterms with a true “blue wave.”

I don’t want to watch an impeachment process. To stop it, we MUST act.

 

 

 

Play

A Doctor: Yes or No?

Have you noticed every television anchor and news reporter since two days ago have referred to Christine Blasey Ford as “Professor Ford” or simply “Christine Ford?” I have seen or heard no one refer to her since Tuesday as “Dr. Ford.” I wonder why that is?

Millions looked in as “Dr.” Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her alleged sexual abuse at the hands of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Ms. Ford introduced herself as a “research psychologist:” “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.” Her often stated and written title of “Dr.” has been shown to be incorrect, for Christine Blasey Ford — according to California psychologist databases — is not and never has been a licensed psychologist in California, and apparently in no other state.

An argument has been raised by the Leftist fact-finding website Snopes.com that Ford — even though not a licensed psychologist — is a “research psychologist,” which is not the same as a doctor, and calling herself that is perfectly all right. Snopes.com in their story paints a pretty picture saying (paraphrased), “It’s OK. She doesn’t treat patients and doesn’t have a practice for doing so, so it’s OK to call herself simply a ‘research psychologist.'”

I personally have no factual insight into her practice of psychology, do not know for certain she has a practice at which she sees, counsels, and treats patients. But I DO know she called herself a doctor and — at least during that 4 hour Senate Judiciary Committee hearing — never corrected anyone who addressed her as “Dr. Ford.”

That sounds innocent enough — but it apparently breaks California law.

“No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” Section 2902(c) states:“ (c) “A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words ‘psychology,’ ‘psychological,’ ‘psychologist,’ ‘psychology consultation,’ ‘psychology consultant,’ ‘psychometry,’ ‘psychometrics’ or ‘psychometrist,’ ‘psychotherapy,’ ‘psychotherapist,’ ‘psychoanalysis,’ or ‘psychoanalyst,’ or when the person holds himself or herself out to be trained, experienced, or an expert in the field of psychology.”

Hillary Clinton: “What Difference Does It Make?!”

Here’s what difference Ms. Ford’s presenting herself as a doctor makes: she isn’t nor has ever been a doctor. She has a Ph.D. from Southern Cal — an MD from nowhere.

Brett Kavanaugh is in the fight for his life right now. Every all day every day he struggles for his personal, social, professional, and family reputation that apparently (at least according to Democrats) has nothing to do with his professional law career, his last 12 years as a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C., his teaching at Harvard and Yale, longtime charity work with the poor in D.C., or his activity with youth in Washington. According to Democrats, the only thing that matters is his honesty and integrity: which they assault non-stop.

The attacks against Judge Kavanaugh originate in numerous sources. Among those sources, there is one common thread: none of the accusations of any of the dozen or so people who knew him personally in high school in the 80’s has been corroborated by anyone! The New York Times, NBC News, FOX News, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBS — none have been able to corroborate any of the allegations made against Kavanaugh. That inability to corroborate allegations includes those made — every allegation made — by Christine Blasey Ford. Their attacks include attempted rape, sexual assault, illegal drug and alcohol use, verbal abuse, lying, even alcoholism. NONE OF THESE HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY ANYONE — EVEN THOSE NAMED AS WITNESSES!

“What difference does it make” that Christine Ford claims professionally to be something she is not? It’s because of all of these dozens and dozens of baseless claims made by all these people against Brett Kavanaugh. No, I am not speaking about the criminal justice phrase “innocent until proven guilty.” This is not a criminal investigation, rather (as Senate Democrats say) “a job interview.” However, if the attempted rape claim made by Ford against Kavanaugh is real, he can still be prosecuted under Maryland law: there is NO statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland. That’s how serious this mess is.

Here’s the difference: it’s about integrity and character. That’s what is being attacked.

Brett Kavanaugh’s character is being attacked by many on the Left:

  1. Senator Richard Blumenthal. former Attorney General of Connecticut. For more than a decade, Blumenthal claimed that he served in combat in Vietnam. He used that in his campaigns, proudly seeking current and former military members’ votes. He never served in combat in Vietnam or anywhere else;
  2. Senator Dianne Feinstein. the California Senator held for a month the initial Ford letter detailing her allegation rather than as Senate mandatory process dictated turning that letter over to the FBI to investigate the allegations against Kavanaugh. Feinstein made that letter’s existence known only a couple of days before the Senate would vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation — using it as a political ploy. Either Feinstein or a member of her staff allegedly and “conveniently” leaked the contents of that letter to the press even after promising Ford they would keep it confidential;
  3. Senator Cory Booker. the New Jersey Senator never told anyone about the sexual assault he attempted while in college. He later wrote about it — admitting it himself — in a college newspaper;
  4. Hillary Clinton. Oh My God! Yes. She has come out questioning the nominee’s qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court and questioning the veracity of what he said under oath;

This list could go on and on. I’ll spare you the heartburn.

Summary

Here’s what matters — and pretty much is all that matters: Is Brett Kavanaugh qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice? Does he have the expertise, knowledge, experience, and temperament to do so? Are there any factual improprieties in his past that should disqualify his confirmation?

The answers to all of those are yes, yes, yes, yes, and no.

J.C. Watts — a famous African American quarterback for the University of Oklahoma — served as a Congressman from Oklahoma’s 4th Congressional District from 1995 to 2003. He won each of his elections by a landslide. He left Congress after deciding (with his family) that he should NOT run for Congress again and went into the private sector where he serves today in numerous capacities.

Watts — besides as an OU football star — is best known for giving a speech at the Republican National Convention before Bill Clinton was re-elected for his second term as president. The Monica Lewinsky incident was front and center in Washington and everywhere else in America.

In that speech, Watts defined the word “character” for Bill Clinton: “Mr. President, character is not just being honest and doing the right thing. it’s about doing the right thing when nobody else is looking.”  Of course, Congressman Watts was referring to the Lewinsky scandal and President Clinton being caught in a lie — under oath — that resulted in his impeachment for perjury.

Hundreds of personal friends, fellow workers, employees, fellow judges, former professors, politicians, and schoolmates have chimed in during these confirmation investigations confirming Brett Kavanaugh’s character with not a single asterisks included. Even while the darts, bricks, and hand grenades have flown from the Left nonstop since his nomination, Kavanaugh has kept his hand on the plow, weathered death threats against his family and himself watched his home trashed with graffiti and other vandalism, been forced into hiding. The Kavanaugh’s have been attacked in every conceivable manner short of physically. And that not happening has been a shock to me.

Brett Kavanaugh does not deserve that. He certainly does not deserve that from members of the U.S. Senate — especially those on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, Democrat members of that committee to a person have violated their oath of office and their commitment to serve in the U.S. Senate and that committee in which they promised to serve the American people and support the Constitution. They — beginning with their universal commitment to NOT vote for his confirmation within minutes of it being announced and long before any testimony, questions or answers — shows that they have discarded any shred of character they may have possessed and donned the robes of Leftist Partisans with one and only one purpose in this matter: Stop Kavanaugh at all Costs!

In doing so, these Democrats and others have taken their final steps to the abandonment of their Constitutional duties in this matter: advice and consent of the President’s Supreme Court nominee.

Brett Kavanaugh has the education, the experience, the knowledge, and the temperament to serve on the High Court.

That’s all that should matter…PERIOD.

And one more thing: Christine Blasey Ford apparently misrepresented herself as a “psychologist” when she is not nor ever has been. Any way you couch that, it’s a lie.

Here’s a conundrum for me: when someone tells one lie, how do you know which — if any — of the things they subsequently say is true and which is false? What — if anything — Christine Blasey Ford gave as “fact” in that hearing was true and which was false?

 

 

Play

Will Brett Kavanaugh Make It?

Not unexpected that Democrats announced yesterday another demand for the one-week extension in the Kavanaugh confirmation investigation to be extended further to allow inclusion of “further” allegations against the nominee. I am certain Democrats did NOT want it revealed that Professor Ford’s activist attorney Debra Katz (at least an associate of hers) began sending out group/mass emails on Friday stating (paraphrased) “We need for anyone who can shed knowledge on the true meaning of the words used by Kavanaugh in his high school yearbook to step forward immediately. Further, we need all those who will step forward with any and all sexual abuse allegations against Kavanaugh to contact us immediately.”

It’s no shock they are willing to circumvent the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh at any cost. Their efforts have nothing to do with his qualifications to serve. Their efforts have nothing to do with the Constitutional process in place for Supreme Court Justice confirmations with the Advice and Consent of the Senate. In fact, these efforts are aimed directly at destroying this legal and historical process for liberal-left political purposes only. (We will not discuss today their political purposes because they are many in number and very well known to all)

The Price

Judge Kavanaugh’s family is paying dearly for this debacle in numerous ways. (See the atrocious cartoon here) One can only imagine the horrors all three — his wife and both daughters — face daily when interacting with their peers. That doesn’t even account for the numerous death threats they continue to receive that have resulted in 24/7 security for them.

What about Judge Kavanaugh himself?  Until a week ago, an unblemished judicial career replete with glowing recommendations from hundreds of fellow employees, classmates, professional colleagues and professors linked with his stellar record on the bench was all that was necessary for his confirmation. I seriously doubt there are any in the United States that are unaware of this logjam in his SCOTUS confirmation. I doubt any of those have NOT developed their own assessment after the internationally televised “She Said/He Said” hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

There’s something important for us all to realize: YOUR opinion, MY opinion, the opinions of ALL the Senators who serve on that committee don’t matter at the end of this. Judge Brett Kavanaugh will either be confirmed to the Supreme Court or he will not be. But none of this other stuff matters in that context. Each person’s life who is looking in on this circus will go on. Each person’s opinion will probably never be factually proven, just as happened in the 1991 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas amid similar claims made by Anita Hill. What really matters is how Brett Kavanaugh processes all this moving forward with his life.

Remember: he is serving as a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C. — a lifetime appointed position — that he will re-assume if his nomination is denied or withdrawn: or will he?

The “Kavanaugh” Opinion

Our opinions or those of even those who are slated to vote on his confirmation — U.S. Senators — are not the important opinions in this matter. Nor or those of Christine Ford, who called herself a doctor until yesterday. She is NOT nor ever has been a licensed psychologist in California as she claims. Now she’s just “Professor Ford.” The only opinion that matters is that of Brett Kavanaugh.

I’ll explain.

The Coat of Many Colors

Joseph was the youngest son of Jacob, and Joseph was Jacob’s favorite son of his 12 boys. Jacob gave Joseph a very elaborate and expensive “coat of many colors,” and his brothers hated him for it. They hated Joseph so much, they plotted to get rid of him. Their plan (which they implemented) was to sell him into slavery. Joseph found himself as a slave working in Egypt. There he was wrongly accused by the wife of his master for sexually attacking her. For that — without proof — Joseph was thrown into prison where he was held for 13 years though completely innocent.

His release came from a miraculous event regarding a dream of  Pharoah. None of Pharoah’s palace seers could interpret it. A baker who had been imprisoned with Joseph but was released to work in the palace remembered that Joseph had interpreted a dream of his when they were imprisoned together. He related that story, and Pharoah had Joseph released and summoned to the Palace. When Pharoah told Joseph his dream, Joseph immediately told him what it meant.

To shorten this story, Pharoah made Joseph his “Second in Command” in all of Egypt, and Joseph ruled over the business process of import-export of Egypt’s crops and other goods.

Israel was experiencing severe famine at that time. Joseph’s brothers were sent by their father to Pharoah to seek assistance in the way of food for him, his family, and others. Of course, they ended up before Joseph, who was in charge of that process for Egypt.

His brothers had for all those years assumed Jacob was dead. When they came before him, none recognized their brother, but he immediately knew them. Joseph responded to them immediately:

How dare you not recognize who I am! You sold me into slavery, let me go innocently to prison for 13 years, and never thought to even search for me. How dare you come here to beg for Egypt’s assistance!”

Of course, that’s not what he said. Joseph immediately confronted his brothers, identified who he was, hugged all (who were shocked and afraid), and the first thing he asked was, “Is our father alive?”

The rest is history: Joseph provided massive amounts of food to the Israeli people to get them through their famine. He reunited with his family and brought them all to live in Egypt.

So?

Hmmm..

You probably are asking “How does the story of Joseph apply to Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation?” There certainly are commonalities between the two. But they may not be what you first think.

Joseph was certainly wronged by his brothers. It was NOT his fault that his father loved him dearly — far more than his 11 brothers — and obviously treated Joseph different from them. I cannot imagine how horrible it must have been for him to find himself one day sitting at the dinner table with his family and the next in chains going to a slave sale in Egypt to be sold. Many Americans have grandparents that related stories of these same things.

The bombshell in this story is the answer to these questions: What did Joseph do when he found himself a slave and then a prisoner in jail for 13 years? Did he quit, did he complain, or lash out to others about how unwarranted his treatment was? Did he threaten others?

No. He quietly waited. He did what he was supposed to do when he found himself in those circumstances. He made himself ready for all the things he faced daily while in slavery, serving his master after being sold and sitting in jail as a sentence for a crime he did not commit.

There’s a BIG lesson in this for all of us. Let’s take a look:

Summary

No doubt Joseph had every right to hold several grudges: against each of his 11 brothers for at first hating him the way they did, then for selling him into slavery, and then for never caring about what happened to him; a grudge against his slave master’s wife for wrongly accusing him of attacking her; against those who held him in prison for more than a decade when he was totally innocent of the charges.

But Joseph bore no grudges. And that saved his life, that of his brothers and his father, and an unknown number of his fellow countrymen whom he was able to feed during a multi-year widespread famine.

How could Joseph do all these positive things after the very ones he helped sold him into slavery and ended up in prison for 13 years?

Obviously, you are trying to figure out where this story is going and how it applies to Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation. But it doesn’t apply to Kavanaugh’s confirmation: It applies to Brett Kavanaugh as a man, a husband, a father, a judge, a friend, a coach, a professor, and as a mentor before, during and AFTER his confirmation or his NOT being confirmed. How Brett Kavanaugh comes out of this — even if it ends horribly and his reputation is permanently destroyed and he loses his current lifetime appointment to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in addition to his Supreme Court confirmation — is all that really matters.

Joseph figured it out:

  1. People wrong each other all the time;
  2. Life is seldom “fair;”
  3. Bad things often happen to good people for no fault of their own;
  4. Nobody owes us anything.

It’s in that scenario that Bret Kavanaugh finds himself today. He MUST move forward with his life. We all must move forward with OUR lives. No matter who takes advantage of us, who uses us, who hurts us, who lies to or about us, or whatever bad circumstances come our way that seriously alter our “perfect lives,” we must find ways to deal with it all. But most importantly, we MUST deal with the people responsible for the bad stuff that comes our way of no doing of our own. The key? Forgiveness.

Forgiveness in itself is healing. Mental health professionals make clear how important forgiveness of those who wrong us is. Not only does it clear our minds and hearts of anger that feeds unforgiveness, but forgiveness also releases us to love again, enter into healthy relationships again, and be available for new opportunities in our own lives that come our way going forward. Often, unforgiveness blinds us and prevents us from even recognizing good things we simply ignore, mistrust, or just walk by because we cannot see those.

No human will ever be truly successful without relationships with others. Our DNA comes from others and is comprised of all the things that are part of establishing and developing healthy relationships with others. Our lives are all pretty much part of others lives and vice versa.

Because of that and because of the human nature we all share, people often hurt other people. Being hurt is inevitable. Unfortunately, forgiveness should inevitably be meted out by all. But sadly, many hold it tight, refusing to give it away.

How does this relate to the Kavanaugh situation? That’s simple: Judge Kavanaugh has much to get over — much to forgive others for. He and his family members must be drowning in anger and unforgiveness for the thousands of wrongs being perpetrated on them. Even though Judge Kavanaugh and his family members each know deep in their hearts that much of what they are seeing, hearing, and reading is not based on facts but on emotions. Knowing and accepting that are two different things.

Sadly, I believe their lives are forever changed by this. I just hope the four of them and the Judge’s parents can each find a way to work through it and get on the other side of unforgiveness. Forgiveness is the key for them all. Forgiveness will allow them to trash the pent-up anger and hatred they may be experiencing.

But there’s one other big reason forgiveness is necessary: they do not yet know what amazing good things are ahead for them that they might miss if they harbor uncontrolled unforgiveness.

Forgiveness IS for the present. But forgiveness is for the future, too. If Joseph had not found a way to forgive his brothers, his slave master’s wife, or his jailers, he probably would have never been in a mental place to help anyone else as he did with that first dream interpretation. He then would have missed the meeting with Pharoah, not interpreted Pharoah’s dream, and not been appointed V.P. of Egypt. He then would NOT have been able to restore his relationships with his brothers and father AND feed millions of his people for several years through a famine.

You know what else would have NOT happened if Joseph had not forgiven? Today’s twelve tribes of historical Jewish people who comprise all of Israel would have never existed! Each of his brothers and Joseph were the original founders of each tribe. Israel as the world knows it would not exist.

Is all this just a story? If it is, it’s a really good one! One thing is certain: Joseph understood and implemented in his own life a trait we all should seek for ourselves and those we love: Forgiveness.

Forgiveness has so many benefits that each begin with relationship restoration. Why not give it a try?

I bet the Kavanaughs will.

 

 

Play

SCOTUS Confirmation: Final Word

This is Saturday! Today’s chapter will be brief: we all need at least one day in the week without Washington D.C. drama. And today will be just a podcast. But there are a couple of things of import for you:

  • We will begin the week Monday with a critical chapter into what may be the most important issue of this century: Sexual and Domestic Abuse. In the story, we will discuss the depths of the problems, their sources, but more importantly, we will discuss a way and a plan to eliminate the large majority of these abuses suffered most often by the weakest among us: women and children. 
  • We will NOT weigh-in any further on the Kavanaugh SCOTUS confirmation until the FBI supplemental background investigation is complete and results are released. It is anticipated that will happen by the end of next week.
  • I promised a treat for our listeners and readers just ahead. Details of that will come Sunday, (which is basically another day off for you!) so don’t forget to look-in. You are going to like this, I’m certain!

PLEASE listen to today’s podcast: it is brief, but contains some very applicable and important information about these and other events. And there’s also a surprise included in the podcast!

ENJOY!

Dan

Play

SCOTUS: Is it Set?

Not yet. But I think it’s close.

In spite of today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh gave separate testimony regarding Ford’s allegations of sexual assault by Kavanaugh, there really is no “there-there.” Those who were expecting to come away from the hearing with proof of one or the other telling the truth while the other one lied about sexual assault came away disappointed.

I watched all 7.5 hours of the hearing. At times it was gut-wrenching, nauseating, and infuriating. More than anything, the hearing was a bad imitation of a Barnum and Bailey circus. And there were plenty of clowns in the act.

At the center of the hearing was the testimony of the accuser: Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. She testified first, without Judge Kavanaugh in the room. After a lunch break, Judge Kavanaugh testified. No one lit the fuse on the fireworks until Kavanaugh showed up. And the fireworks ensued — with much drama, grandstanding, and fanfare. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina actually stole the show during Kavanaugh’s questioning:

Graham’s outrage came after his Democrat counterparts on the Committee derided Kavanaugh in pretty much every way they possibly could. His testimony above tells the entire story of Graham’s feelings on the hearings.

Christine Blasey Ford: Testimony

Regarding Ford’s testimony, she simply repeated her claim of sexual assault against her by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh from 36 years ago. She repeated (under questioning) the names of those she previously named as witnesses. She repeated her claims about Kavanaugh and his friend Judge being in the room. She repeated several inconsistencies in her story that were already out in public from details leaked to the press apparently by members (or staff) of Democrats on the committee. She spoke quietly, seemed puzzled at questions fairly often, and responded in a voice that has been characterized as “Up-Talk.” (that is a trait used by some who when speaking make the last words of a sentence go up in pitch. Professionals say doing so is an effort to draw sympathy from listeners as well as to sound/seem victimized)

Obviously, there is NO way to verify the veracity of her testimony. Why? In her case, the 4 people she named as witnesses of the Kavanaugh sexual assault alleged to have been committed by Kavanaugh have all in affidavits provided to the Judiciary Committee denied even being at the party, knowing about the party, knowing where the alleged party was held, and in one case, even knowing Brett Kavanaugh. Each of the 4 gave those under threat of felony for lying.

Here are bullet-point items that raised some eyebrows regarding Ford’s testimony and circumstances surrounding her way of coming forward to testify:

  • She wanted anonymity. She contacted her Congresswoman first, then wrote that Congresswoman the letter with details and gave a copy to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA);
  • Even while claiming she wanted anonymity, Ford reached out to the Washington Post to tell her story. She gave her full story to a Post reporter who wrote and published it;
  • Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) as Chair of the Committee, when told Ford hated to fly and therefore did not want to come before the Committee in D.C., offered for the Committee to go to California to meet with her anywhere and anytime. In her testimony, she shared details of numerous trips she has made in her work and for personal purposes in which she flew all over the world. It was revealed AFTER the hearing that she had NOT been in California when Grassley’s offer was made to go to her in California. Ford was actually in Delaware, just a short distance away from Washington D.C. No explanation for her lack of candor was given;
  • Ford was definitive in her description of what happened during the incident: she remembered that she drank just 1 beer at the party, stated emphatically who the 4 others were at the party, what Kavanaugh and Judge allegedly did to her, who all were in the house, how she prevented what she thought was going to be a rape, and even the sounds of the 2 boys going down the stairs after she was able to get into a locked bathroom in avoiding an attack. Yet she did NOT know the location of the house where party and attack occurred, who the house belonged to, who took her to the party, or who took her home. She also has no memory of the date of the party;
  • Details in the Post story differed in part from her accounts of the “event” that her therapist put in her interview notes. Ford had no explanation for the differences other than the therapist’s notes were wrong;
  • The only explanation she had for any of the named witnesses not corroborating her story (and their even refuting her story) was that one of those witnesses — her best friend — has been having serious “medical issues.”

Committee Democrats lobbed nothing but softballs at Ford, each lauding her for coming forward with the sexual abuse charges. None asked her a single tough question. Republicans deferred their questioning to a female rape victim legal expert. (In my estimation, their doing so was a huge mistake) This rape expert is an Arizona attorney who prosecutes sex crime perpetrators and simply took too much time asking her questions that were often benign. (Republicans in questioning Kavanaugh replaced her with the normal process in which Senators asked questions)

Brett Kavanaugh: Testimony

  • If you missed the hearing — especially the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh — I encourage you to search online, find it and listen to it. If you have young children or teenagers, I encourage you to include them. His opening remarks were historical, bombastic, and challenging. He called out Senate Democrat Committee members for orchestrating what he called a lynching and a circus, multiple times charging those Democrats with destroying his credibility, his reputation and that of his family, and doing so in retribution against Donald Trump for beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. He likened it to the 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas, in which a surprise last-minute sexual attack was made by Anita Hill in testimony against Thomas.
  • The common thread throughout his testimony was that EVERY Democrat implored Kavanaugh to ask, request, implore, and even demand for President Trump to “make” the FBI investigate Ford’s allegations against him before his confirmation goes to the full Senate for a vote. Each time, Judge Kavanaugh made it clear he is committed to doing anything that the Judicial Committee requests, even if they asked for another FBI hearing. Senator Grassley several times interrupted, making it clear that the Committee has an investigative staff comprised of G.O.P. and Democrat staffers who had already investigated the Ford charges. That did not stop Democrats from badgering Kavanaugh. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) was the most noxious in her questioning, demeaning Kavanaugh for not demanding another FBI investigation.

At this point, let me address the demands for this second FBI investigation: in Senate confirmation investigations, the FBI exclusively performs those for every nominee. They had investigated Kavanaugh 6 times for previous nominations. None of these allegations surfaced in this most recent investigation or any previous investigation. It was made clear (though Dem Senate members ignore the fact) that the FBI does only background investigations, that the allegations made by Ford and the other women were criminal in nature. The FBI, therefore, has no jurisdiction — Montgomery County, Maryland law enforcement would investigate any allegations of criminal wrongdoing — not the FBI.

It was also made clear that for any agency to launch such an investigation, basics must be provided by any accuser: the nature of the crime, who committed the crime, where the crime was committed, names and details of potential witnesses, and when the alleged attack occurred. MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE THIS ALLEGATION WITHOUT FORD (OR SOMEONE) PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION.

Ford’s cries and that of every Democrat on the Committee and in Congress for the FBI came even though ALL committee members knew the above information would be required for anyone to begin an investigation. They also knew that there is NO statute of limitations in Maryland for sexual assault. With credible evidence, law enforcement could still prosecute Kavanaugh for Ford’s allegations if probable cause was found.

The Ultimate Travesty

Republicans pretty much nationwide have blasted Senate Democrats for several weeks over Democrat handling of this confirmation process. Why? It became obvious early on that Democrats care not for Kavanaugh’s experience, judicial expertise, or any other of his qualifications for the job of Supreme Court Justice. Obviously their desire is to delay any Kavanaugh confirmation hearing by painting him with as vile and salacious allegations as possible to totally discredit him, keep him or any other Conservative from becoming SCOTUS Justice. Senate Democrats have NO regard for the truth, the standard of the presumption of innocence, the cost to the nation of disallowing who is probably the most qualified person in the U.S. to hold that position, while simultaneously destroying his life and that of his family.

Senate Democrats purpose: keep a conservative majority from controlling the Supreme Court. Their goal: protect Roe v. Wade in doing so.

Their war to accomplish that goal was made obvious with the revelation of specific actions by the Ranking Member: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). She received the letter from Ford July 30, 2018, detailing Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Senate rules require any member receiving such information to do two things: forward the allegations to the FBI immediately to be included in their nomination investigation and to simultaneously share the information with fellow members of the committee. Feinstein knew both were required of her, yet she did neither.

Why? She said she did so because of the request by Ford for anonymity. But Feinstein knew that her forwarding the letter to fellow committee members and the FBI would  NOT violate her promise to Ford for anonymity. Actually, doing so would have protected her identity. Instead it was leaked to the press which began the normal press feeding frenzy and the Post story was published.

Feinstein by turning that letter over to the FBI July 30th would have allowed a confidential and thorough investigation of Ford’s allegations by Montgomery County well before the Kavanaugh hearings began. Yet NO question in the 30-hours of Committee hearings was asked of Kavanaugh about the allegation even with the Ford allegations being in the hands of Feinstein. Feinstein herselft did not even ask Kavanaugh about it in her 40-minute private meeting with the nominee!

Feinstein’s motive could only be one and on only: stop Brett Kavanaugh at any cost.

Summary

The only Constitutional role in this process of the Senate is “Advice and Consent” in confirmation proceedings. This Senate Judiciary Committee took it upon themselves to orchestrate an unethical if not illegal plan to thwart the Senate’s 200-year-old confirmation process purely for political purposes.

Very few are surprised at their actions, I am sure. Many if not most are disappointed.

Think about this: the United States of America was just about to be robbed of the services of who many are calling THE most qualified Supreme Court Justice nominee of the last century.

Shame on those Democrats! Thank God for the fortitude shown today by Judge Kavanaugh to stand firm in the face of pure partisanship in Senate Democrats’ efforts to stop his confirmation. He had help from his friend Senator Lindsey Graham as shown in the video above.

I may be counting chickens before they hatch, but, “Ladies and Gentlemen, I’d like to be the first to introduce to you the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court: Brett Kavanaugh!”

“So It Is Written…So Let it be Done!”

Play

How Does Socialism Actually Work?

It’s a bit spooky that the “next” generation of Americans are getting so chummy using the word “Socialism.” Many of their heroes are tossing that word around, too. The reason for the far-too-common use of the term is simple: today’s educators have wrapped their classroom agendas in a cloak of Socialism. They talk about it like it has brought Nirvana to the countries who have embraced it, and they use that to demonize Capitalism. Educators don’t discuss the horrors of Socialism in Germany, China, Venezuela, the Czech Republic, Turkey, and nations who long ago disappeared because Socialism there was unsustainable. All they share with our next generation is this: “Socialism is a political environment in which everyone is guaranteed by the government that all their fundamental needs are going to be met — no matter what!”

What’s so spooky about it is that this utopian promise is based on totally false information. These educators are filling the heads and hearts of the next generation of Americans with untruths. And our kids are swallowing that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

So let’s today compare Socialism with Capitalism — the political and social structure embraced by the U.S. for 240 years — and contrast how these work in various countries in which they are used.

Capitalism

“An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”

Capitalism has always been the home of true entrepreneurship, encouraging through free market trade the initiative for people to create and develop new technology, free market trade, and continual innovation for improvement and invention. Those who take advantage of the capitalistic environment receive rewards tied directly to their efforts. 

The greatest drawback of Capitalism is corruption that results in individuals and groups from both private and government sectors taking advantage of capitalistic opportunities to garner power and wealth: sometimes illegally and sometimes skirting the law but doing so unethically.

In every capitalistic society, there have always been politicians or other leaders who impose very non-capitalistic restrictions intended to siphon money to politicians or to protect favored friends with various capitalistic concepts — like monopolies — which can only exist if the government allows these to exist. What we do know though is the more economic freedom given to a people, they will not only do better, they will always default to the best and easiest economy: Capitalism.

Capitalism is NOT a form of government. Believing that a “free market” can solve all problems is not really a valid expectation. Since most “problems” are caused by government, it seems it would be wiser to “fix” government than to expect an economic system to get past government incompetence.

In reality, NO country has really allowed capitalism to fully run its course, (meaning “total economic freedom”) where a government is only there to handle dishonesty and disputes — not prevent these, just resolve them with a specific process and only as they occur.

Socialism

“1.  Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2.  The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.”

Socialism is almost totally a political system, which does claim to magically solve all problems even though a socialist concept is what creates the problems that result in its inevitable failure. The Soviet Union is a good example. The claim for establishing the socialist Soviet Union was to solve the disparity between rich and poor and assure that everyone will have at least a minimum good life. The reality is, Socialism Soviet-style resulted in making everyone extremely poor and destitute, including people who were not poor before it was instituted.

There have been attempts at pure Socialist governments throughout history. Socialist founders of these governments really did believe these governments could solve all problems. None have worked.  And the “pure” Socialists countries have all either died or ARE dying.

Feudalism was a combination of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. Socialism is basically Feudalism by another name. Both develop, maintain, and are controlled by a ruling class who directs everything. The only real difference is that feudal lords claimed that their right to authoritarian rule was divine, whereas the socialists claim that their right to authoritarian rule originated with their commitment to helping the poor along with other altruistic claims or beliefs.

Whatever the justification, the results are the same: elite authoritarians in charge of everything. This type of rule has been around for centuries, and so far all of them have failed.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

  1. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
  2. The fifth would pay $1.
  3. The sixth would pay $3.
  4. The seventh would pay $7.
  5. The eighth would pay $12.
  6. The ninth would pay $18.
  7. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected: they would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

  1. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
  2. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
  3. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
  4. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
  5. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
  6. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:

  1. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
  2. “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
  3. “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
  4. “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

Summary

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system AND Socialism works. The people who pay the highest taxes today or do the most effort and provide the greatest amount of work in Socialism don’t get any extra benefit from what they bring “to the table.” Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, take from them the extra they put into the system, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier!

Play

I’m Sad Today

Today’s story “I’m Sad Today” is presented only in audio. For those of you who regularly read our story, I apologize. I am so emotional about the travesties that play out daily in Washington D.C., I felt you should all be able to not only read my thoughts on these subjects, but I wanted all to hear them.

We don’t do this often here. And it will seldom happen in the future. But as we get closer to choosing whether or not Brett Kavanaugh will become the next member of the U.S. Supreme Court, we all need to take what we discuss daily at TruthNewsNet.org, hear the emotion along with the factual information disseminated in our Podcast, and align it somehow with your already developed thoughts.

More than ever I encourage you to share your thoughts AND this Podcast with your friends and associates. I must confess that I rail against Leftists and the “new” way of governing with which they slap Americans in the face daily.

It is imperative that everyone knows the truth of these allegations levied against the nominee. But it is just as imperative that everyone knows the purpose and process that are aligned behind the curtains of governing by Leftists.

Thank you for understanding and your tolerance!

Dan

Play