All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

But he was cool with funding Planned Parenthood

Kevin D. Williamson took some time out from bashing Trump supporters as Nazis and begging us to send National Review money to pen a hate-filled article: "Planned Parenthood’s Century of Brutality."

But he was cool with funding Planned Parenthood -- with my money.

From Williamson:
Clarence C. Little was a cultivated man.
[SNIP]
He was a humane man with horrifying opinions. 
Little is one of the early figures in Planned Parenthood whose public pronouncements, along with those of its charismatic foundress, Margaret Sanger, often are pointed to as evidence of the organization’s racist origins. (Students at the University of Michigan are, at the time of this writing, petitioning to have his name stripped from a campus building.) 
Little believed that birth-control policy should be constructed in such a way as to protect “Yankee stock” — referred to in Sanger’s own work as “unmixed native white parentage,” if Little’s term is not clear enough — from being overwhelmed by what was at the time perceived as the dysgenic fecundity of African Americans, Catholic immigrants, and other undesirables. 
Eugenics was the global warming of its day.

Little, Sanger, and the rest agreed with the Nazis on this issue, as well as Stalin, Mao, and others.

Williamson finally used his writing skills to attack those who actually agree with Nazis.

But he was cool with funding Planned Parenthood.

Now readers might say that Williamson opposed funding Planned Parenthood.

Sure, that is what he wrote.

Wrote.

Indeed, on July 15, 2015, Williamson wrote:
‘A Lot of People Want Liver’: Planned Parenthood’s Bloody Business
Wrote.

In the piece, he wrote:
Trafficking in fetal body parts is a federal crime, and of course Planned Parenthood denies that it is involved in any such thing. A spokesman for the organization, Eric Ferrero, says that Planned Parenthood doesn’t sell pieces of dismembered children for profit, but instead is “reimbursed” for them. This is true in the sense that the women who work at escort services are paid for their time and companionship, and that storefront psychics offer their services “for entertainment purposes only.”
Nice writing.

But his piece also said:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose devotion to the cause of fetal dismemberment is absolute, would go to any length short of honest employment to protect Planned Parenthood. Among Republicans, at this writing only Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have shown any stomach for this fight, the rest of them being for the moment too rapt at Donald Trump’s burlesque to take notice.
Ah yes, the Trump Burlesque.

Williamson opposed his election.

Which meant Clinton would be president, and Democrats would control at least the Senate, if not the House as well.

Because in the states that had Senate races, how people voted for president is how they voted in the Senate.

That meant Republicans had a 22-12 victory, enough to give them the Senate 52-48.

Had Clinton prevailed in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, she would have prevailed 278-260 in the Electoral College, Democrats would have picked up two more seats, and the Senate would have been 50-50 with Vice President Kaine breaking ties.

Don't worry. Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia would have wasted no time in appointing a Democratic successor when Senator Kaine resigned to become veep.

Instead, we ignored Williamson, elected Trump president, and there is a good chance that after four decades, federal taxpayer funding will end for the abortionists.

Writing is easy.

Standing against funding Planned Parenthood is not.

When push came to shove, this fraud named Kevin D. Williamson was With Her!

He was totally cool with funding Planned Parenthood if it meant Washington conservatives -- not the people -- would control the Republican Party.

The only burlesque (as Williamson put it) I see is the comedy of Washington conservatives trying to convince us they are real conservatives -- and the stripping away of that facade.




Hate the media? Love the Trump?
Read the best two books on the subject.




On November 8, 2016, the American people said, "Trump the Establishment!"

Now read the book that explains how and why the press missed this historic election.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.


And then read the original, "Trump the Press," which chronicled and mocked how the media missed Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at DonSurber@GMail.com

Please follow me on Twitter.

Friend me on Facebook.

9 comments:

  1. Hammer, meet head of nail. Trump is the revenge of the Tea Party. The same people who were betrayed by the Republicans elected him. They refused to investigate the IRS scandal and impeach Koskinen and prosecute Lerner while controlling congress (can you imagine what the democrats would have done if the tables were turned? They would have gone all the way to the Oval office. Talk about a passel of limp dicks), and this is the revenge. This is also why they sit back and watch the savages across the aisle rather than teach them some civility.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Williamson doesn't like rural whites, either.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Williamson, no doubt, prefers GOP candidates who lose in November, just like the rest of that nearly-worthless party.

    I'd rather win with a less-than-ideal candidate, because I'm pragmatic like that. And you can't implement ANY of your pet projects unless you WIN.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Williamson is a scumbag and every chance he climbs up on his high horse, I sling manure his way. He and the rest of the "false dichotomy" headquartered at NR were unmasked big time in 2016. National Review is just another cover for globalism - a Hegelian dialect constructed to move "conservatism" to the left over the past few decades. Trump is more conservative than they have been pretending to be. If their reaction to his nomination didn't shock a few of their readers, nothing will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I keep wondering if they (NR) really would have preferred a Romney or McCain-type who would have given them at best the bare minimum in terms of wins, but who would roll over to show his belly in the name of bipartisanship/collegiality (which the democrats are never interested in unless they're on the outside looking in), and which would allow the NR staff to show up at cocktail parties and DC watering-holes with a "look at how magnanimous and moderate we are" smugness. They've got to be bleeding over there, and rightfully so.

      Delete
    2. agree whole heartedly. hopefully somewhere, someday, fat boy williamson gets his -- good and hard.

      Delete
  5. If you want to entertain yourself, and see how far NRO has fallen, run over to NRO and peruse one of their typical anti-Trump articles. Then, proceed to the comments: I'll bet at least 3 out of 5 comments are from leftists, it's almost a leftist echo-chamber over there now. At least it was the last time I checked (got curious a couple of weeks ago).

    ReplyDelete
  6. The National Review went nuts over the GA loss - at least two articles about not getting cocky and not to think much of that victory.

    Sorta says that they are not playing on our team, glaringly, doesn't it?

    Can't hide their disappointment at all that Trump winning.

    No rational person should give NRO the time of day. When they said Romney was conservative (no, he's not) it meant he was okay for their religious devotion to globalist trade bargains that sacrificed the American middle class. Trump ripped the mask off that phony tabloid.

    ReplyDelete