Planned Parenthood And Hillary Clinton

In what is being embraced by Hillary Clinton as the highest praise, Planned Parenthood, America’s longtime leading provider of abortion, is enthusiastically endorsing Clinton as president. Clinton can boast the first-ever endorsement of a candidate in a presidential primary in the century-long existence of Planned Parenthood.

The Planned Parenthood endorsement contains this eye-opener from its leader, Cecile Richards: “Everything Planned Parenthood has believed in and fought for over the past 100 years is on the ballot.” And the organization believes that no one fights for this more than Hillary Clinton, whom Richards and friends rightly view as the truest true believer.

As someone who wrote an entire book on Hillary Clinton, and has long followed her very carefully, especially on matters of her faith and abortion beliefs, I can say without equivocation that she is not mildly or even strongly pro-choice; no, Hillary Rodham Clinton is fanatically pro-choice. There is nothing more ideologically worthy to her. To borrow from Nancy Pelosi, this is political “sacred ground” to Mrs. Clinton.

In a statement, Clinton said she is “honored” by the endorsement. She assured Planned Parenthood, “As your president, I will always have your back.”

When Cecile Richards invokes Planned Parenthood’s past 100 years aside her glowing endorsement of Hillary Clinton, it naturally brings to mind the matron of Planned Parenthood—one Margaret Sanger, a hero to Richards and Clinton.

I’ve written here before of the checkered history of Margaret Sanger, especially on race, which her devotees either excuse or avoid like the plague. There was her Negro Project, her May 1926 speech at a rally of the women’s chapter of the KKK in New Jersey, her general championing of an ideology of “race improvement,” and much more. It is no surprise that a group of African-American pastors are demanding the removal of the bust of the progressive icon from the Smithsonian’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit.

Sanger deemed certain human beings “morons,” “idiots,” “imbeciles,” “human weeds,” and “misfits.” She wanted her Planned Parenthood to spearhead a movement to generate “a race of thoroughbreds” from the misbegotten “dead weight of human waste” soiling the national landscape courtesy of undesired and “unfit” breeders. She extolled Stalinist Russia’s birth-control policies, and urged after a fact-finding visit there in 1934: “We [in America] could well take example from Russia, where there are no legal restrictions, no religious condemnation, and where birth control instruction is part of the regular welfare service of the government.”

That’s exactly where Clinton and modern progressives stand today: they demand that birth control be part of the regular welfare service of the government, and funded by taxpayers regardless of religious objection. If you disagree, the Obama administration will take you all the way to the Supreme Court. Just ask Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood Specialties, and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

None of Sanger’s sordid history has deterred Hillary Clinton’s unflagging admiration, just as none of the video exposes of Chianti-sipping Planned Parenthood personnel fingering their Caesar’s salad as they discuss crushing unborn babies has deterred her crusade to keep America’s largest abortion funder awash in tax dollars.

“I don’t have all the facts but Planned Parenthood has apologized for the insensitivity of the employee who was taped,” protested Mrs. Clinton of the Center for Medical Progress[‘s video-sting revealing a Planned Parenthood employee casually discussing the “harvesting” of babies. “But for more than a century Planned Parenthood has provided essential services for women.”

To Mrs. Clinton, the bad guys in the video-sting of Planned Parenthood were the video-makers—that is, the exposers, not the perpetrators. “I think it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood had been the object of such a concerted attack for so many years,” she complained, “and it’s really an attack against women’s rights to choose.” To Mrs. Clinton, it’s the exposers who are the attackers, not Planned Parenthood.

Clinton, whose spokeswoman says she has not actually seen the videos, nevertheless reaffirmed that Planned Parenthood does “really good work” and she remains “proud to stand with Planned Parenthood.”

The organization gives more money to Mrs. Clinton (by far) than any other Democrat.

Fittingly, in 2009, Clinton proudly accepted Planned Parenthood’s self-described “highest honor,” its coveted Sanger Award. She gushed that she was “in awe of” Sanger. The then-secretary of state accepted her award at Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s annual Awards Gala.

The admiration is mutual; thus the group’s historic endorsement of Clinton.

Someone in the media who can get near Mrs. Clinton should ask if she’s willing to repudiate Margaret Sanger and her organization’s highly questionable and objectionable history in everything from race to the literal business of baby parts. Now that Clinton has received Planned Parenthood’s endorsement, and promises to have its “back,” it seems a fair thing to ask, doesn’t it?

– See more at: http://www.visionandvalues.org

The Gift Of Ignorance And Sophistry

Another “Holiday Season” is behind us. And every such season, the purge of religion in our public schools just gets worse. In fact, the season now serves to remind us of one thing for certain: the God-purgers are on an unyielding secular crusade that gets more self-righteous ever year.

This past season seemed to reach new levels of absurdity. What we’re seeing now is remarkable not only for its vigorous assault against everything religious, but for the apparent willingness by secularists to embrace ignorance and sophistry in the process. They are willing to make their students—whom they’re supposed to educate—dumb about historical reality and to look downright silly in the process. I’ll illustrate with two examples, starting with this past Thanksgiving, the kick-off of the long “Holiday Season.”

It was fascinating to observe the new tendency by our educators to frame Thanksgiving Day as about anything but giving thanks to God. I detailed this at length a few weeks ago, and will not revisit it fully here, but I checked out the Thanksgiving Day lesson at the website education.com, a go-to source for teachers. On the main page was a lesson plan titled, “Giving Thanks for Thanksgiving.” The lesson did back-flips in a painfully obvious attempt to mention giving thanks to anything but God. There were bountiful references to Native Americans, corn, stuffing, and turkeys, but nothing of the Almighty. The Creator even got trumped by cranberry sauce.

There was nothing in the “lesson” plan about the salient historical fact that the Pilgrims fled religious persecution, that their Thanksgiving feast was about giving thanks to God, and that Presidents Washington and Lincoln—not to mention a long line of White House successors, including the most liberal among them, from Woodrow Wilson to FDR—honored a national day of Thanksgiving for that reason.

This is historical fraud, forgery, perjury. I ask my secular-liberal friends: Is it any wonder why so many people are homeschooling? You can dislike religion, if you prefer. You can even despise it. But a truly “inclusive” education cannot exclude such essential historical facts.

So, what kind of child are these secularists educating? One who will not even learn what the original Thanksgiving was truly about or why our early presidents enacted the day to begin with.

As for Christmas, where do I start to illustrate the madness?

Well, this year the award goes to an elementary school in Kentucky, where the Constitutional geniuses at the Johnson County School District censored from “A Charlie Brown Christmas” the subversive section where Linus recites the Gospel of Luke’s nativity narrative. Sure, the school couldn’t avoid the title “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” but it would not dare tread on any explanation of what “Christmas” is.

The irony here is rich. Consider that Linus’ dialogue is prompted by a question from Charlie Brown, who in exasperation pleads: “Isn’t there anyone who knows what Christmas is all about?” Linus explains, giving an accurate answer from the New Testament. Most ironic, Linus holds forth in front of fellow students in a public-school auditorium.

Like students today, Linus’ friends are free to believe or not believe, but at least they will not be ignorant.

It makes me wonder what this school’s officials would have preferred that the kids watch instead. I have some suggestions for their curriculum next year: How about the old Rankin-Bass productions? “Santa Claus is Coming to Town” has some intriguing stuff about a Winter Warlock. The old guy officiates the first Christmas wedding (so I’m told) in the woods around the North Pole with Mr. and Mrs. Claus. Or, how about “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?” The kids can take notes wide-eyed as they learn about how Santa and Rudolph swept down and saved Christmas not only for the entire world that year (no Christmas that year otherwise) but even for the poor souls on the Island of Misfit Toys.

Hey, at least Jesus Christ is avoided. That’s the chief goal, right?

In sum, what all of this makes plain is that our secularists prefer not only ignorance over religion for their students, but sophistry.

And why? Because they want to fundamentally transform, to borrow from the signature phrase of our current president. To really fundamentally transform America and the culture, they need to remove as much religion as possible, period.

And when they do, this is the gift of ignorance and sophistry they bestow.

Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His latest book is Takedown. His other books include 11 Principles of a Reagan Conservative, The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

Read more at http://www.visionandvalues.org/

When Hollywood Celebrated Christmas And Marriage

A few days before Christmas, I checked the schedule for Turner Classic Movies, one of the few TV channels I watch. I was looking for Christmas movies, maybe the 1938 Reginald Owen version of “A Christmas Carol” or something like that—something for the family. I was pleased to find three favorites back-to-back that I’ve seen with my wife and daughters, all nice Christmas romances—and all with a similar happy ending.

The first was “I’ll Be Seeing You” (1944), starring Ginger Rogers and Joseph Cotten, with a smaller role by a charming teenage Shirley Temple. Cotten is a World War II veteran struggling with what we would call post-traumatic stress disorder. Rogers is on Christmas furlough from prison (of all things), unjustly serving time for an accidental death that was purely self-defense. Wonderful as always, Ginger Rogers doesn’t dance or sing in this one (no Fred Astaire), but plays a compelling role. The Rogers and Cotten characters fall in love, with Christmas as the suitably warm and fuzzy back-drop.

The next film on TCM’s offering that day was “Christmas in Connecticut” (1945), starring the great Barbara Stanwyck and the lesser-known Dennis Morgan. Here, too, the guy was wounded in World War II. Stanwyck is a food writer for a home magazine. She is initially confused for a married woman, which (thankfully) she is not, clearing the way for a snowy Christmas romance, replete with the horse-drawn sleigh through the countryside.

The third movie was “Holiday Affair” (1949), with Janet Leigh and Robert Mitchum. Here again, the background is Christmas and World War II, as the Mitchum character, another veteran, pursues Janet Leigh, a single mom who lost her husband in the war. It’s a touching, fun movie, well-written—back when dialogue was more important to moviegoers than non-stop action sequences.

What strikes me about these and other films from Hollywood’s Golden Age are two things: First, Hollywood once made lots and lots of major films with major stars celebrating Christmas. Second, in each case, no matter how different the plot, there was always a common end-goal: marriage. From the outset, marriage is the assumed, unquestioned objective, from the moment the guy and gal catch one another’s eye or heart. The goal isn’t a one-night stand or wild weekend or trip to Vegas, or living together to try out each other for a few months or years.

The one predictable plotline is a heartwarming romantic pursuit—set within a sparkling Christmas context—that ends in holy matrimony. What is the happy ending? What does it depend upon? Marriage.

Think about other favorite Christmas movies from the era. At the core of “It’s a Wonderful Life” is the wonderful life Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed forge together. Look at “White Christmas:” another war story, with Irving Berlin’s magical music, that’s all about getting together Bing Crosby and Rosemary Clooney in a church before a preacher. The two that conspire to bring them together, Danny Kaye and Vera Ellen, end up marrying as well—after they all sing “White Christmas.”

Or, take the precursor to “White Christmas,” the 1942 musical “Holiday Inn,” with Bing Crosby and Fred Astaire. The boys battle over the lovely Marjorie Reynolds for her hand in marriage. The ambition for the boy is not to get the girl to bed and move to his next conquest, but to get her to the altar and stay with her forever.

That America, sadly, is gone. For countless Americans, marriage is no longer the goal. It has become redefinable, optional, replaceable, switchable, less preferable to living together. There’s a popular term now in our culture: “baby-mama” or “baby-mother,” which a man uses to describe the single mother of his child (or, conversely, “baby-daddy”). It’s extremely common.

I recently spoke to a pediatrician from a small town that’s as close as you can get to traditional values. He told me had 12 new babies to attend to in the maternity ward, born over the previous couple of days. Only two of the mothers were married. Yes, the moms chose to give life, which was commendable, but they didn’t have marriages and homes with fathers for their babies.

I don’t know how long America can survive this. When marriage isn’t being merrily redefined, it’s being shrugged off as merely optional. We’re no longer celebrating marriage as we once did. Hollywood certainly isn’t.

I don’t see a happy ending to this story. We need a culture that celebrates not only Christmas but marriage.

See more at: http://www.visionandvalues.org

Giving Thanks At Thanksgiving…But Not To God

In 1789, America’s first president proclaimed a “day of public thanksgiving and prayer.” George Washington implored the heavens to “pardon our national and other transgressions” and urged the citizenry to practice “true religion and virtue.”

In 1863, Abraham Lincoln urged his countrymen to set aside the last Thursday of November “as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.”

Subsequent presidents continued this civic-religious tradition. “More than three centuries ago, the Pilgrims, after a year of hardship and peril, humbly and reverently set aside a special day upon which to give thanks to God,” said John F. Kennedy in his first Thanksgiving proclamation. “They paused in their labors to give thanks for the blessings that had been bestowed upon them by Divine Providence.” Quoting the Bible, President Kennedy affirmed: “It is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord.”

That, ladies and gentlemen, was the old America.

In the New America, we apparently know better. Our culture transformers are eagerly remaking Thanksgiving in their own image. This is especially true on the education front.

I was recently alerted to a Thanksgiving Day lesson at the website education.com, a go-to source for teachers. On the main page is a 60-minute lesson plan titled, “Giving Thanks for Thanksgiving.” “Thanksgiving offers an opportunity to teach young students about early days in the original colonies,” the plan informs us. “Students will discover the purpose and people involved in the first Thanksgiving.” The “learning objectives” are succinct: “At the end of this lesson, students will be able to identify the purpose of the first Thanksgiving as well as several people involved in celebrating it.”

The introduction instructs the teacher: “Call students together. Ask students to think about some of their favorite holidays and what they like to do on these holidays. Tell students that Thanksgiving is coming up. Ask students what some of their favorite Thanksgiving traditions are. Read Thanksgiving Day.”

“Thanksgiving Day” is one of three books recommended in the lesson: “Thanksgiving Day” by Anne Rockwell, “Thanksgiving Is…” by Gail Gibbons, and “The Very First Thanksgiving Day” by Rhonda Greene.

I do not own these books. I went to their Amazon.com pages to read the descriptions. There is no mention of God, though there are bountiful references to Native Americans, various tribes, corn, stuffing, and turkeys. The Creator even gets trumped by cranberry sauce.

The review for one of the recommended books, “The Very First Thanksgiving,” states: “This is a beautifully illustrated picture book for young children about the original Thanksgiving feast.” But there is a “caveat,” says the otherwise sympathetic reviewer: “this book nowhere mentions God, who is after all the reason for this holiday.”

The reviewer underscores the “significant historical fact” that the Pilgrims had fled religious persecution, that their Thanksgiving feast was about giving thanks to God, and that Lincoln enacted Thanksgiving Day for just that reason. Thus, writes the reviewer, “the author’s careful avoidance of this fact is a disappointment. But if you are more on the politically correct side, you will find this book to be a perfect introduction to Thanksgiving for your children.”

Indeed, if you’re on the “politically correct side” of the New America, this is perfect—a book that comprehensively airbrushes God from the historical picture.

The “review and closing” portion of the “Thanksgiving” lesson at education.com concludes with these guidelines for the teacher: “Have students line up to present their Thanksgiving fact and what they are thankful for. Congratulate the students on their hard work. Encourage everyone to dig into the yummy food and enjoy having a Thanksgiving feast together!”

Dig in, kids, without a thought of thanking the Almighty.

I ask my secular-liberal friends: Is it any wonder why so many people are homeschooling their kids? Think about it. You can dislike religion, if you prefer. You can even despise it. But a truly “inclusive” education cannot exclude such essential historical facts. This is historical fraud, forgery, perjury.

I’m reminded of a conversation I recently had with a friend who works in the children’s section at Barnes & Noble. She regularly briefs me on the latest political correctness and rank secularism pervading today’s books offered by “educators.” She was cataloguing the stock of Thanksgiving books.

“How are they?” I asked.

“You don’t want to know,” she groaned.

She found only one book in which thanks was given to God.

“Well, then,” I asked her, “what are they giving thanks to?”

“They’re just thankful,” she said vaguely. “They’re simply thankful.”

“Thankful’ for what?” I replied.

She again emphasized: “They’re just thankful.”

Well, that isn’t Thanksgiving. It never was. Welcome, pilgrim, to the new world.

See more at: http://www.visionandvalues.org

Paris, Brussels, And 21st Century Europe

Some time ago a former student emailed me a video clip that I now show my Major European Governments course. It’s a five-minute news piece by Dale Hurd of CBN News, a conservative Christian outlet—the rare kind of place where you see reports like this. The piece was on radical Islam in Europe, specifically in Belgium, and it was based on Hurd’s interview with a Muslim leader in Brussels, the very heart of modern Europe, of secular Europe, of the European Union, and of everything Islamic fundamentalists despise about Europe.

“Allah makes the laws and tells us what is allowed and what is forbidden,” Abu Imran told Hurd.

Imran is leader of Shariah for Belgium, and insists there’s no such thing as a “democratic Muslim.” Such a notion, he maintains, is as absurd as a “Christian Jew” or “Jewish Muslim.” “It’s impossible.”

Imran says that real Islam and Shariah law are “inseparable.”

Imran’s group wants what it calls “Belgistan,” and foresees Brussels as an “Islamic capital” within mere decades. He cites numbers to back his optimism. Imran says that in some cities in Belgium, such as Antwerp, 40 percent of the children in schools are Muslim. And though Muslims comprise only 25 percent of religious believers in the country, that is enough to make them the largest religious group, given that Belgium, like most of Europe, has rapidly de-Christianized. Imran’s group expects Muslims to be the majority in Belgium within 20 years.

Notably, that rise is coming from nothing unusual among Muslims. They are simply reproducing, whereas natives of Belgium, like natives of Europe, are not. For many modern Europeans, sex is about recreation, about fully separating intercourse from reproduction, about having as much sex as possible without the undesired outcome of a child. For faithful Muslims, sex is still about babies.

Like many major European cities, from London to Oslo, the most popular baby name in Brussels last year was “Mohammed.” In fact, reported Dale Hurd, “Mohammed” was the most common baby name in Brussels each of the last four years. I do not see that trend changing anytime soon.

Dale Hurd noted in his report that Shariah for Belgium is a “small group that a lot of people do not take seriously.” I bet they are now.

Obviously, I’m sharing this with readers now because the ringleaders of the terrorist assaults in France last week—the worst attacks inside France since World War II—were reportedly based precisely in Brussels.

Unlike Mr. Imran and his group, the ISIS-affiliated Muslims who attacked last week are blatant jihadists. They aren’t patient enough to wait for their babies to grow to adulthood. They’re not awaiting a demographic time-bomb to bring Islam to Europe. They want “victory” now. They are happily (yes, happily) willing to detonate themselves at this very moment. Their method is bombs rather than babies. They don’t want victory via life by outgrowing native Europeans. They want victory via death by killing native Europeans.

Regardless of those violent methods, Islam is poised to triumph in Europe in the long-run. Over time, a native population that fails to do the most rudimentary thing of any native population—that is, give birth to the next generation—will by sheer sex and math give way to the outsiders who have entered the country and are giving birth to the next generation. Muslims in Europe can make love, not war—love that brings babies rather than blocks babies.

The clashes we are witnessing between ex-Christian Europeans and current Muslim Europeans is just the start. The Europe of the 21st century is going to be extremely chaotic.

See more at VisionandValues.org