Jew World Order

There
are white lies.  There are ordinary lies.  There are big lies.  Then there are lies that are so huge that it is difficult for a rational
person to believe that such a lie has been attempted. ~ Larrey Anderson

The left’s
talking points about the GOP, contraception, and women in America in the
year 2012 are based on the biggest [i] lie of our century: the GOP is attempting to ban contraception in America.

This lie cannot stand examination. 
The left lies about Social Security reform, unemployment numbers, the
state of the economy, global warming, etc.  The list is long.  The
script is methodical and boring.  The politicians who deliver the lines
of that script are boorish. 

The assertion that the GOP is
attempting to deny women contraception at the state level is so
absurd and so heinous that the Party must not be silent.  It must not
sit quietly or offer up tepid rebuttals.  The GOP must respond loudly
and rationally.  It must do so now.

Before
we examine the reasons why this lie is blatantly egregious, let’s look
at one instance of the peddling of this pernicious propaganda.  The
example chosen is a recent press release from KCBS — the CBS affiliate in San Francisco. 

The title of the release is “Women’s Health Forum At SFSU Focuses On Access To Contraceptives.”  [Emphasis added.]  Here is the opening paragraph:

SAN FRANCISCO – A women’s health forum held Thursday at San Francisco State University focused on the timely topic of access to contraceptives. Advocates equated the recent debates on the issue to watching a battle won 50 years ago being waged again. [Emphases added.]

This
is propaganda as defined and practiced by Joseph Goebbels.  (The
numbers that follow are from Leonard Doob’s numeration of Goebbels’
propaganda methods. 

Doob’s system has become something of a standard
for monitoring and explaining propaganda.  The system and Doob’s
rationale for creating that system are here.  An abbreviated version is here.)

[6]
“Propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be
transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.”  The
conference was held in a leftist university setting before a group of
concerned women — an audience predisposed to trust the word of the
speakers.  The event received radio (and other media) coverage.

[7] “Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.”  The reporter defined access to contraception as a “timely topic.” 
Thus, giving the false premise of the story credibility.  The “news”
was tainted and biased from the first sentence of the story.  

(As we saw
above, even the title of the release was biased.)

In the second line
the reporter attempts to establish her objectivity by distancing herself
from the “advocates.”  Yet it is crystal-clear that the reporter has
chosen to report as factual a fabricated issue.

[12] “Propaganda may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.”  This press release was posted
on the website of Democrat Congresswoman Jackie Speier — one of the
speakers at this conference. 

With the requisite rhetorical vagueness
practiced by the members of Congress who can only be described as subversive — rather than progressive — Congresswoman Speier couched her remarks to those assembled this way:

There have been 1,100 bills introduced across this country to reduce sources for women as it relates to their health.  80[ii] of them have been signed into law.  This is an unprecedented assault on women’s health and the status of women in this country.  [Emphases added.]

Only
one part of this sweeping accusation is in some sense true.  There
probably are 1,100 bills that address, and possibly impact, funding for
health issues — whether it be health issues for all adults (e.g., Medicaid) or health issues limited to women.  It would be surprising if this were not the case.

Here
is why.  In the early 1960s, a married Connecticut couple went to their
local Planned Parenthood office and asked for advice about abortion. 
They received a prescription for contraceptives.  At that time,
Connecticut had a state law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. 
In 1965 the Supreme Court, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, held the Connecticut law unconstitutional [iii].

No
state can prohibit the sale of contraceptives.  This should be the end
of the argument; everything written either asserting or implying that
the GOP can or will ban contraceptives is a lie.  For once,
just once, the GOP should stand up and, with every resource available to
the Party, expose this propaganda and the politicians pitching it for
what it is…a lie coming from liars.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and senior editor for American Thinker.  He is the author of the award-winning novel The Order of the Beloved and the memoir Underground.  He is working on a new book, The Death of Culture.

[i] The contraceptive lie is “bigger” than the AGW myth because the contraceptive lie is blatant and patent.

[ii]
For the most part, the 80 bills that have passed are attempts to
prevent financing the sexual conveniences of some people with the money
of other people. 

These bills deal with insurance and/or state payments,
in the form of transfers from one party to another, for various aspects
of birth control and abortion.  (The left’s talking point exception is an Arizona bill that limits late-term abortions.  Seven other legislatures have passed similar bills in the last two years.)

[iii] I do not agree with the logic that the Court used to reach its finding.  I do agree with the outcome.  The arguments in Griswold
are tortured and contorted, to say the least.  The Court should have
relied on the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall … be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process.” 

If anything qualifies as
“property,” it is a person’s body.  We have the liberty to use that
property.  All (sane) adults offer or accept legal contracts for the use
of their bodies.  It happens all the time. 

Two examples: (A) A person
hired for a job contracts with another person for the some type of use
of his or her body and mind.  Marriage, at least according to the law
and longstanding legal tradition, is a contract for the shared use of
the married parties’ bodies. 

(See Blackstone’s Commentaries,
Book 1, Chapter 15, Section 1.  This famous legal commentary was written
just before our Revolutionary War.) 

This right of the person, when
viewed as property, like any right, is not unlimited.  Some of my objections to Griswold, and a brief positive argument for another approach, are here.

Larrey Anderson – April 16, 2012 – AmericanThinker

diggmutidel.icio.usgoogleredditfacebook