The video has been removed because Jessica Faerman, a Democratic delegate has made a copyright claim to the video. Obviously she has no copyright claim and is simply trying to sweep this under the cover. Her Facebook page is http://www.facebook.com/jazzyjess in case you want to thank her for removing all the videos.
Her Facebook page is http://www.facebook.com/jazzyjess
Obviously she really doesn't have a copyright claim and is being a typical liberal and trying to stifle free speech.
Perfect reasoning why Obama's mother should have used BC or had an abortion.
See, there are reasons for abortion.
Sick doesn't even begin to describe it. That anyone could support this evil organization is beyond me. I need a bath after watching that swill.
I sent an email to my dear senator DICK Durbin a while back explaining why I didn't want my tax money going to PP. I got a nice letter back telling me what wonderful sevices they provided to the community, Like breast cancer screening. Just like the other letter telling how wonderful a judge Kagan would be. These liberals have their heads in the sand... or somewhere.
Holy CRAP batman. Thank you so much for posting this article and video. Pretty much nothing is sacred with these evil libtards and it all leads to the same, dark, hot place.... and I'm not talking about anything between someone's legs....LOL. It's unreal isn't it? If you couldn't watch the video WATCH IT. And share it with your friends.... everyone needs to really and finally understand what we're dealing with here so we can put the kibosh on it once and for all. Just Evil..... can't believe the web site. "Takes years to figure out your sexual orientation....".... bullcrap!
First, they've stopped protecting the unborn. Up next, is the children.Piece by piece they are totally demoralizing every aspect of our society. I.am.so.disgusted.
Toon, What I didn't say was with a WEAK SPEAKER like we have in Boehner no wonder the conservatives are being pushed around.
maybe we should send this to the Obama's and make their children watch it with them and see if they agree with what is going on....problem is...they are the ones pushing this filth on our kids....and people wonder if Satan is real...believe me he is and living in the white house....maybe we should call it the RED HOUSE now......
the more i see of these Pigs (Planed Parent) the more disdain and hatred i have for what they are doing to our country and our children.....all the bowls of judgment in revelation aren't enough punishment for these pure evil demons.......
Not to mention the societal tradition that children care for their elderly parents that was broken by Social Security.
Yep, which covered the costs of my services, which were not abortion. You see, Jaynie, I don't like to take things on the dole of the taxpayer. I paid for the services I received. Do you buy anything from companies that support charities or causes you disagree with? Have you ever bought Yogplait? I find the stuff delicious, myself.
I haven't suggested that they are "so important" as to warrant tax dollars. I was challenged on the point that PP does anything at all that is good, and in that context I provided those examples.
If only we can motivate our Congresscritters to Make It Happen. HOW do we stop them from caving? (I'm not accusing my own here. Kay Bailey and John Cornyn generally do a pretty good job. Kudos to Blake Farenthold for Corpus as well!)
I think this is one of the things libertarians often get wrong, and Leftists love to pin on conservatives. It is exactly BECAUSE we do not believe in the state providing "charitable" services that we should be quick to support the goals of charity, and the institutions of civil society that provide structure and a safety net for those genuinely down on their luck. Which conservatives already do, by the way, in much higher numbers and with substantially more generosity than liberals, who only like to talk about helping the poor in order to feel good about themselves.
I agree that it isn't "charity" if it's at the point of a gun. My question is purely about whether the particular services I mentioned are a reasonable charitable goal.
You're right, because the FIRST time they did this, MY kid wouldn't BE in Public School...see where I'm going with this...?
I'll repeat my question: do you think that providing health screenings to people who can't afford a regular doctor's appointment is a good thing or not? I'm not asking about the entire organization or their history, just these things.
I agree with your assessment of the "poor" in this country, by the way. I myself subsist substantially below the "poverty" line and somehow survive without iPhones or iPads or cable TV. But if one doesn't have health insurance (a substantial cost, and one that's only going up thanks to Obamacare) or has catastrophe-only insurance like myself, those medical screenings are a mighty nice thing to fall back on in place of a regular doctor's visit, which can cost hundreds of dollars. Of course, if the government didn't interfere so much with the market in health insurance and force us all to subsidize Medicaid and Medicare with our premiums, the cost might be more reasonable and there would be less need for charity health clinics in general.
I will, just as soon as the Obama job market improves. I hear he's going to get rid of ATMs and that's going to get us all cushy jobs with lots of paid leave in which to ride our unicorns through fields of rainbows. ;)
I don't necessarily disagree with you. I will say that I have found them to be pleasant enough when I chose to pay the $80 for the checkup and prescription to PP rather than the full appointment fee at the doctor's office, since I am just starting out and cannot afford more than "catastrophic" health insurance that doesn't cover anything under $3,000. I think this is a "good service" they provide. And no, I don't have an iPhone, cable TV, HBO, fancy shoes, or the like, nor do I take money from government programs and was careful to pay PP in full for the services I received so as not to take taxpayer money I believe is unfairly and unconstitutionally appropriated.
All that being said, they definitely have a point of view on sexuality and everything associated with, and I'm not trying to argue for that view. But I would feel quite the hypocrite if I didn't defend the services I had occasion to use.
Nope, you misunderstood. You asked if I mention the good things, as I see them, that PP does in the article. I said no. That doesn't mean that I didn't mention them at all. Reading comp. Perhaps we should spend more time on that and less time on sex ed.
No need to pick on The Heritage Foundation. My internship there is over, so you don't need to misplace your dislike from me to it. ;)
Watched it, but without sound. Perhaps I should go whine in a tent for a better laptop from mommy government. :P
P.S. My comment, as I see now I should have elucidated from the beginning, concerns the particular book with the sketches, not the entire video.
It took FDR at least 4-6 elections to get his New Deal agenda through. We're in for a long slog! Giving people freebies is always harder than taking them away. I believe it's possible though! The Tea Party Patriots give me hope, as long as they don't get co-opted entirely by the Republican Party. The Party should be the vehicle, not the agenda-setter.
P.S. the new fight will be against National Standards. If you don't like a few public schools inviting PP to do their sex ed, imagine what it will be like when there is a national curriculum. By the way, Newt Gingrich has been the leading "conservative advocate" for national standards, not that the others are much better, supporting NCLB and Race to the Top.
Inez, I didn't see a reference to Newt in your link. A quick google revealed this link
"I’m not only deeply opposed to a national core curriculum, I really question the concept of core curriculum at the state level. I recently was approached by a special ed teacher who said after 35 years of experience she reached the conclusion that the model of the individual education plan, which is now the baseline for special education, should actually apply to all students – that students learn at a different rate, they have a different set of interests."
His support for Race to the Top is qualified at this article. I seem to recall one of his speeches recently (one of the Florida ones) where he spoke about repealing NCLB.
Do you have any links that address this, specifically?
Thank you for your reply. If common core is the same as core curriculum, that is what my link refers to.
I am very happy with his position on school choice. That may be the only hope for returning to a traditional curriculum that includes God, patriotism, and a genuine education.
Now all I can find is Newt sites refuting this. It was long before the elections came into prominence. It was in a discussion of ed reform advocates talking about a video of him supporting national standards being used by Leftists to advocate for them. He seems to have rescinded his position now. Of course, I realize that "I heard it, I swear" is less than convincing, and I'm sure a thorough internet-digging would turn up the video. Try "Common Core" instead of national standards. Sorry I can't be of more help. :(
Nope, but it does discuss Margaret Sanger quite a bit. Do you believe that providing STD screenings and gynecological health care for the poor is not a good thing, as long as it is done with money freely given and not coerced? Please elucidate.
I will take the blame for not being more clear about my general lack of support for the things in the video; I obviously should have been more clear that I think holding up this particular book as a boogyman is a bit over the top, not that I generally think it's okay to expose kids to sexual advocacy, particularly without their parents' support.
And thank you again for your service. There are no people more fond of Reagan than those who heard his moral clarity from the other side of the Iron Curtain! Happy to be aboard in the greatest country in the world!
Although I'm all for destroying the unconstitutional DoEd (DOE is energy, another unconstitutional department!), just cutting the top won't do. There are over a hundred programs, separately funded, under the DoEd currently that would merely shift to another department or continue to operate independently if we simply drop the Department's cabinet position. And that is just education! There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of these self-sustaining bureaucracies pumping out extra-Constitutional and non-legislative "rules" published in a massive tree-waste (where are the environuts?) called the Federal Register every month. No, this will not be a one-election turnaround, but will require a sustained effort from the Tea Party and the conservative movement, first to take over control within the Republican Party and then to consolidate and roll back the federal agencies along with unconstitutional legislation. It's a hard road ahead, which is why we can't hate each other over whether or not some illustrations should be labeled pornographic or not. Disagree and debate, by all means, but ultimately, we have bigger fish to fry and we need everyone we can get in this center-right country to help us fry them.
"public schools have been perverting what was once subject matter predicated on age appropriateness and basic decency."
This! It's one thing to prepare adolescent girls for imminent events that needed to be explained. (do I need to say I don't mean having sex here?) It is entirely something else to go into graphic detail and including all aspects of sexuality to children.
They have usurped parental prerogative and judgement- which is solely the parents' right.
They're also robbing children of the carefree innocence of being children.
Well yes, Mike, but we need the movement to move back in the bounds of the document. Or do you think the plutocrats in Washington will voluntarily reverse the growth of the Leviathan?
I didn't need speakers to see the book, it was depicted in the video. My point about the speakers was merely that I didn't know about the whole context or anything that might have been said, but one can get the gist about it from the video itself and the bullet points in writing on the screen.
My family has gone through more sh*t than you can believe to get to this great country, Jaynie. Don't think I take its future lightly.
PS one doesn't have to be a member of the Frum civility police to believe that insulting people's fathers and family is out of bounds for discourse. I doubt people would say such things, if their names were attached proudly to their comments, as mine is.
I agree - and I know my views and idealogy have evolved (especially having raised a few children that are now Inez's age!).
This subject however, is a very touchy subject with parents. We have to be really, really vigilant at every front because our kids are confronted with sexuality way too early and on every venue possible! This includes the schools - which is where PP loves to swoop in and start indoctrinating them. I think every conservative's hackles start to bristle (or should) when you see PP and children in the same conversation. They are all about indoctrination and nothing about parental choices.
Which, among many, many other reasons, is why parents should be able to choose the schools their children attend!
I was merely pointing out that my experience with the book highlighted was positive sir, not charting a map for all parents and their children. I'm not a child development expert OR a parent, and I'm NOT TRYING TO or SUPPORTING forcing children to read any books without their parents permission or support. I do think I can comment on my own experiences with the book in question without stepping outside of my realm of expertise, however. The book was useful to me; it relieved my anxieties about puberty and being normal. It did not turn me into a sex maniac. That is the beginning and end of my opinion on the matter.
The societal damage from child molestation extends way beyond the involved individuals. They often grow up to be (often severely) dysfunctional adults. It affects their ability to function normally with their spouses, their families, friends, and at work. Even if they don't go on to molest, themselves. Think about it. In the warped minds of "social engineers", these people may be postulating that the secrecy/ denial aspect is "the problem" and if it could be "out in the open", it would no longer be a problem. (this should sound familiar) Or maybe convenient/ safer (for the perpetrators) would be more accurate.
Forty, fifty years ago there weren't the specific warnings to children that eventually became necessary. Children back then wouldn't have known it was wrong otherwise because it didn't even come up. It is instinctively unnatural.
This is a really complex situation. There's a lot more to it than the hideousness and misery suffered by victims and the "fads" that seem to drive society's moral decline.
I have an article in editing right now about the Progressive eugenics movement. Leftists do have a way of pinning all of history's nasty chapters on conservatives, don't they? The worst right-wing dictator was Pinochet, and he pales in comparison to the wreckage of the Left in the 20th century.
They do STD screenings and gynecological exams (pap smears, etc.) for people who can't afford to go to a regular doctor. They also provide prescriptions for birth control to adults that can't afford to go to a regular doctor. I'm not saying we should all be obligated to pay for such things via taxes, but as charity, I think these are positive things that PP does.
Wow, you're clairvoyant? That must be a useful skill. Any stock market tips for those of us less blessed?