What Is It We Conserve Again?

The world at large seems to have an inaccurate definition, at best, of the word conservative. They would say conservative means unwilling to change, stodgy, boring, stuck in the past, overly careful. And in the political world, the way the media (aligned with Democrats/ liberals/ progressives/ socialists) defines conservative as racist, bigoted, jingoistic, stingy, as well as unwilling to change, etc.

It’s always better to define your own terms, rather than to have enemies define who you are.

Back in October I wrote a piece called “What We Conserve.” I said then that I’d like to ask presidential candidates, “Are you conservative—and, if so, what is it you want to conserve?” In Saturday’s Republican debate in New Hampshire there was a question that came close, asked of three candidates in different forms. So I’d like to take a look at how they answered, and then compare to the standard I was looking for. (I’m editing Kasich for length, but trying not to cut anything essential to the meaning. You can get the entire transcript here.)

The moderator here is ABC’s David Muir. He asks John Kasich first:

MUIR: We’re going to turn now to what it means to be a conservative, and I want to turn to Governor Kasich.

Governor, while campaigning here in New Hampshire, you were already asked about groans from some conservatives after your endorsements from the New York Times, and the Boston Globe. You said, quote, “What conservatives have to know is they have to say, look isn’t it nice to have a conservative like me liked? And, maybe they ought to think about it because if I get elected president, the Republican party and the definition of conservatism is going to change.”

How would you change conservatism?

KASICH: Well, first of all, look. As the New York Times said, he’s certainly not a moderate, but he can bring people together to solve problems. The fact of the matter is I’ve cut taxes more than anybody in the country this year. I have balanced budgets, the federal budget, the state of Ohio budget…

But, here’s the beauty of it, it’s not just balancing a budget, it’s about jobs….

We have to have economic growth, but once we have economic growth I believe we have to reach out to people who live in the shadows. I believe we need to help the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor. We need to help the developmentally disabled to rise, and we need to help our friends in the minority community develop entrepreneurship.

In other words, in America, conservatism should mean not only that some rise with conservative principles, but everybody has a chance to rise regardless of who they are so they can live their God given purpose. That’s what conservatism should be.

OK, to summarize, conservatism means solving problems, cutting taxes, balancing budgets, jobs, economic growth, and then helping the disadvantaged to rise.

I don’t want to quibble over words, but conservatism might lead to those things, but it isn’t those things without a context of some philosophy.

Next David Muir turns to Donald Trump:

MUIR: Mr. Trump, you’ve heard the argument from many of the candidates on this stage that you’re not a true conservative. Tell the voters watching tonight why you are.

TRUMP: Well, I think I am, and to me, I view the word conservative as a derivative…of the word conserve. We want to conserve our money. We want to conserve our wealth. We want to conserve. We want to be smart. We want to be smart where we go, where we spend, how we spend. We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country. And we have people that have no idea how to do that and they are not doing it, and it’s a very important word and it’s something I believe in very, very strongly.

He does approach this as a word definition question. What we conserve is money, wealth. Conservatives are smart about spending, about economic issues. And we conserve, or save, our country, unlike the incompetents failing to do that now.

So, it’s a conservative approach to money, not defined, and saving our country, not defined. If this were a high school answer, I’d give it a B-. Not completely wrong or irrelevant, but very surface. If this were a college answer, I’d send it back for a rewrite, with some details, and more than just “conserve money and country” without showing anything concrete about what that might mean.

Next David Muir asks Marco Rubio to respond to Trump’s answer, which he uses it to give his own definition:

US Constitution
image from Wikipedia

MUIR: Senator Rubio, you have said yourself that you don’t think Donald Trump is running as a conservative. Did he convince you?

RUBIO: Well, I think conservatism is about three things and Donald touched on one of them, but it’s about three things.

The first is, conservatism is about limited government, especially at the federal level. The federal government is a limited government, limited by the Constitution, which delineates its powers. If it’s not in the Constitution, it does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to states, local communities, and the private sector.

It’s about free enterprise, which is an economic model that allows everyone to rise without pulling anyone down. The reason why free enterprise is the greatest economic model in the history of the world is because it’s the only economic model where you can make poor people richer without making rich people poor.

And it’s about a strong national defense. It’s about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet. That’s conservatism.

I didn’t cut any of his words. When you only have a minute or two, you have to be concise, and he was. Three parts: limited government, free enterprise, and strong national defense. That is close to being the complete three-legged stool of conservatism, except that he separates out small government and strong security, along with free enterprise. Those three are considered the basics by many. But small government and strong security both apply to the Political Sphere. So what's missing is the social/civilization sphere—which Rubio in general is strong on. So although his answer misses that, he’s pretty  good.

I’m always looking for better, shorter, more direct ways to say things. So I was interested in an interview Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse did on MSNBC with Chuck Todd in late January. 

Here's the transcript:

CHUCK TODD: What is a conservative, in your view, today? Define conservatism in the 21^st Century, via Ben Sasse.

BEN SASSE: Thanks. That is a great question. America is the most exceptional nation in the history of the world, because the US Constitution is the best political document that’s ever been written. Because it says something different than almost any people and any government has believed in human history. Most governments in the past said might makes right, and the king has all the power, and the people are dependent subjects. And the American founders said, “No. God gives us rights by nature, and government is just our shared project to secure those rights.”

Government is not the author or source of our rights, and you don’t make America great again by giving more power to one guy in Washington, DC. You make America great again by recovering a constitutional republic where Washington is populated by people who are servant leaders, who want to return power to the people and to the communities. Because what’s great in America is the Rotary Club, it’s small businesses, it’s churches, it’s schools, it’s fire departments, and it’s little leagues across this country.

What makes America great is not some guy in Washington who says, “If I had more power I could fix it all unilaterally. That’s not the American tradition.

So, we conserve the Constitution. It’s about government preserving our God-given rights. To recover the Constitution, we need servant leaders. America is great because of good American people and local organizations.

He covers the political and social sphere, but the economic sphere only by inference. Still, in a brief minute he nails it. “Government is just our shared project to secure those rights” is a sentence worth memorizing.

I still take longer than a minute to get the ideas out. But here’s a review of what we conserve in each of the three spheres, from the October piece: 

     Political: If we’re going to conserve our liberties, that means government does nothing to infringe on our God-given rights….

If you’re listening to candidates, see if they have a commitment to conserving/restoring our Constitution, and can enumerate some of these limited duties of the proper role of government.

     Economic: There’s a simple way to prosperity: those who earn wealth get to decide how to spend it.

Government doesn’t have much business being involved in the economy, except to protect our property….

So, a conservative not only wants small, limited government, but limits spending to the proper role of government, leaving the largest portion of income to the people who earn it.

This conservative approach to the economy is the engine behind thriving prosperity and unlimited innovation. A conservative gets out of the way of a productive people, and does nothing more than protect the people’s wealth and their freedom to pursue their work.

     Social/Civilization: Civilization requires a people accountable to God. Such people value family, innocent human life, property rights, and truth. Such people respect one another and generally live together in peace despite differences in belief and culture….

A conservative leader recognizes that religion is… an essential institution helping us understand what our rights are, and what our obligations to one another are….

A conservative leader lives a life that shows commitment to family. Such a leader would have no sexual scandals coming up from the near or distant past. Such leaders would be so consistent that all those who know him/her would stand up to defend against such an accusation, because they would know such an accusation is inconceivable.

A conservative leader gives charitably, privately. He/she tithes (ten percent of income) plus more, regardless of income level.

A conservative leader is honest and consistent, so that his word is his bond, and everybody knows it. He doesn’t make behind-the-scenes deals in darkness. He doesn’t engage in crony capitalism, either receiving “bribes” or offering them. He’s not beholden to donors; anyone who would donate to him does it with the clear knowledge that as an elected official he will vote based on principle.

We can sum this up the same way we did in October:

The answer to what we conserve ought to include clear evidence of understanding of the Constitution and its purpose, strong commitment to the free market and property rights, and strong personal religious practice that values family and marriage, innocent life, and truth. And the answer must come naturally, as part of the basic vocabulary, because the person is a natural conservator of freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

Integrity

In∙teg∙ri∙ty  n.  1. The quality or state of being complete; unbroken condition; wholeness; entirety  2. The quality or state of being unimpaired; perfect condition; soundness   3. The quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity—SYN. See HONESTY

Integrity is a good thing. A virtue. Something we value if we want thriving civilization.

So it’s something we want—need—in our leaders.

That’s why I was concerned a couple of evenings ago when I first saw the story that the Ted Cruz campaign had sent out a false story that Carson was dropping out of the race in order to persuade Carson caucus goers Monday night to change to Cruz. At the first moment I felt a sort of kick in the gut. But since I’ve done quite a lot of vetting of Senator Cruz—for years, since I vetted him when he ran for the Senate from Texas—I thought there must be something more to the story. And there was.

Much more detail came out yesterday. I didn’t do the original research on this; you probably heard it from several sources already. (Jennifer Burke at Politistick, Mark Levin on his radio show, Dana Loesch on The Blaze,[i] for example). I’m not a news outlet. So after we summarize the story, we’ll get to the commentary.

Here’s the order of events.

Tweet, image from Politistick

CNN reporter Chris Moody heard from as-yet unidentified person in the Carson campaign that, instead of heading to New Hampshire and South Carolina, Carson was heading home to Florida for some R&R before Thursday's National Prayer Breakfast. He took this news and tweeted it. CNN then reported this on TV at 6:45 PM (Iowa time, so shortly before the Iowa caucuses began)—Dana Bash and Jake Tapper, during their Iowa Caucus coverage. The banner over their report said, “Campaign: Carson to take break after Iowa.” They noted that this was unprecedented for a presidential campaign—unless they were planning to drop out, they implied. So that was the natural speculation.

The Cruz campaign tweet, image from here

Five minutes later the Carson campaign began trying to clarify: they were heading to Florida to avoid a storm and to pick up some fresh clothes. Getting that clarification to spread took some time.

By 7:00 the Cruz campaign put out the news to precinct captions in Iowa, saying, specifically:

Breaking news. The press is reporting that Dr. Ben Carson is taking time off from the campaign trail after Iowa and making a big announcement next week. Please inform and Carson caucus goers of this news and urge them to caucus for Ted Cruz.

It was signed by Spence Rogers. Shortly afterward Iowa’s Steve King tweeted the same message, as did the Ted Cruz campaign, including a screen shot of the CNN story in the tweet.

The Rubio campaign also pushed the story. The evidence is a tweet by Rubio proponent Conrad Close.

Tweet, image from Politistick

This was posted at 7:29 Iowa time, Monday, as the caucuses started. Almost twenty-four hours later Rubio was on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, decrying the unfair dirty tricks of the Cruz campaign, righteously indignant, saying his campaign was above such things. The above tweet still existed at 7:29 PM Tuesday, during that interview, but disappeared at 7:30, which wouldn’t have been known if the Politistick writer hadn’t taken a screen shot.

Backing up to the Iowa caucuses. Going in, Carson was polling fourth; he came in fourth—with a higher percentage than predicted. There are no stories of visible scrambling and discussing the story among Iowa caucusgoers of Carson leaving. There was no visible exodus of Carson voters. Nor are there, to date, any anecdotal stories of individuals who changed because of the news story (or Cruz's campaign's passing it on, or Rubio's either) about Carson’s plans.

Following the outcome Monday, Trump even sounded somewhat subdued and humbled—honored to have come in second, which was more than originally expected. When asked about that low-key attitude change, he said he was trying to be a bit dialed back, and presidential sounding, because some people like that, he was told. The point is, Monday night he congratulated Cruz and was unaware of anything amiss in the caucuses.

The Cruz campaign didn’t lie. They didn’t stretch the truth. They repeated what was being told on the news, which is fair game. That is what we think the Rubio campaign was doing as well.

On Tuesday, after the Cruz campaign note came to the attention of Carson, he called it dirty tricks, and what you expect from politicians, and why we need a non-politician, etc. In other words, he took political advantage of the situation to advance his own campaign narrative.

Ted Cruz did what you would expect of someone with integrity. He apologized for the misunderstanding. Some people took this to be an admission of guilt. Later he clarified that there had been a misunderstanding based on the CNN news report (it wasn’t, by the way, the Cruz campaign’s misinterpretation, but the CNN reporter’s wording and subsequent speculation, which the Cruz campaign merely passed along as newsworthy), and his apology specifically was that, once they became aware of Carson’s clarification (which came to them during the heat of the ongoing caucuses), they didn’t send out a follow-up correction. They hadn’t said Carson was ending his campaign, but they were apologizing for not following up to say directly that Carson wasn’t dropping out.

Carson invokes his Christianity, and Cruz’s, and refuses to accept the apology.

Rubio, as noted above, decides Cruz’s note was purposefully deceptive, and fails to mention the use of the same information by his own campaign.

Trump opportunistically decides that a huge injustice has been done to his dear friend and fellow candidate, Ben Carson. So this is, in his opinion, a monumental bad deed done by Cruz personally, because he’s an evil person. And then it becomes about him. He decides to claim that a huge portion of Cruz voters resulted from this dirty fraud, and if it hadn’t been for this huge shift of voters from Carson to Cruz, Cruz wouldn’t have had a high enough percentage to beat Trump. So he calls for a redo of the entire caucus, or at least a negation of Cruz’s win—depriving him of his delegates, leaving Trump the winner. How convenient.

Back up to November, when Carson was leading in national polls. Trump trashed him daily in his ubiquitous media, going so far as saying he’s pathologically violent—incurable, like a pathological sex offender. Mark Levin catalogued those attacks on his radio show (particularly at 12 minutes in). That was what Trump calls fair. But what Cruz did was so costly to Carson that he should be disqualified entirely?

So, what we see is pretty much what we expect from all the characters, if we’ve been paying attention:

Cruz is gracious and meticulously scrupled. He has integrity, which we had supposed all along.

Carson is overly sensitive and politically inexperienced. A bad thing happened to him—apparently because of his own behavior, which had meaning that he did not anticipate. He’s angry at Ted Cruz in the moment and unwilling to forgive—for now. But I think, as things play out, and Cruz becomes the nominee, Carson will get over the immediate anger and disappointment and see things more clearly. He won’t remain unforgiving. I’m guessing that. Maybe he is just using this as an opportunity to get sympathy and invoke his “non-politicians are better” message. That is happening. But I think he really is a decent person who hasn’t yet grasped his own role in this kerfuffle. He doesn't appear to be fully in integrity at the moment, but I expect he will get there again.

Rubio may or may not be aware that his own campaign was doing precisely what he calls underhanded from the Cruz campaign. If he knows, he’s simply a slick liar when it comes to politics. If he didn’t know, he’s using this opportunity to attack an opponent in the race—because that is what politicians do. Lying about it is completely out of integrity. Taking advantage of it in a campaign is what politicians do, but I don’t like it. But it doesn’t make him worse than whoever our Democrat opponent will be. I’m giving the benefit of the doubt and guessing it's a political opportunity rather than outright lie, based on what we’ve seen of him in the past. So I don’t completely write him off, even though he’s not my choice. I’m hoping that years of experience will lead him to greater integrity.

Donald Trump is what we have come to expect: self-centered, opportunistic, lying, manipulative, a bully and a sore loser. He clearly doesn’t care about Ben Carson; we know that from his own voluminous words. He doesn’t know what fraud is in legal terms. But he’s willing to use his money to try to buy, through lawsuits or other means, the outcome he wants for his own advantage. Integrity is not a word we apply to Donald Trump. “The quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity” is a definition that rarely intersects with him even tangentially.

One more mention about integrity: Rand Paul. He bowed out Tuesday (Santorum and Huckabee also bowed out). This presidential race wasn’t the right time for Rand Paul, as it was never the right time for his father. But he served a purpose in the conversation. The debate connects with the Constitution much more than it would have without Ron and Rand Paul input. Rand Paul and I don’t agree on everything. He’s libertarian, and I am not quite. But I believe the conversation needs to be between conservatives and libertarians talking about the Constitution. I think Paul has been honorable. He hasn’t been altering his message in a misguided attempt to get more mainstream voters. I appreciate his integrity in this campaign. It would have been a better political season if his message had been magnified in place of Trump’s. It is my hope that his followers will recognize Cruz as the closest to their cause.

Integrity is something we want and need in a leader, but it’s a rarity in politicians. Ted Cruz is a rarity. I’m glad the truth came out quickly this week, when his integrity was impugned. If it had been true—or unrefuted—it would have done more damage to Ted Cruz than anything said about Carson's going home after Iowa.

---

[i] This link might require a subscription to view.

Grand Jury Questions

Blog post 2-1-2016  Grand Jury Questions

This past week a grand jury in Harris County, Texas, where Houston is located, declared that Planned Parenthood was completely innocent on all charges of trafficking body parts and Medicaid fraud. And, in a further surprise, the two investigative journalists who filmed the videos were indicted on felony fraud charges, because they produced fake IDs to get access to make the videos. [  http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Harris-grand-jury-indicts-pair-behind-Planned-6782865.php     ]

There has been an immediate backlash. How could they decide against the evidence before our eyes? Plus, they had subpoenaed records as additional physical evidence.

I’m going to link the various videos—links, including links to full-footage video, which is available for most. The main argument against the videos is that they are “highly edited.” That is the reason for the full-footage. The short videos are clips, usually 8-12 minutes long, but not distortions. Planned Parenthood hired experts to prove that there was distorting editing; their experts found that was not so. Yet that lie continues to be trumpeted by Planned Parenthood shills, including gleeful commentary yesterday by Leonard Pitts.

The law at issue, screen shot from video

So, below are the videos. The final three, from January, respond to an interview by Planned Parenthood head Cicile Richards; they use footage from the earlier videos to discount her claims of innocence, but they do not show new, previously unseen footage.

After the videos, we’ll talk about the grand jury. 

Here is what I think is the full list of videos shared by The Center for Medical Progress.

1.       July 14, 2015 “Planned Parenthood uses partial-birth abortions to sell baby parts” Shows Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s senior director of medical services, describing how some doctors carefully conduct abortions that leave fetal body parts intact.  [   http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/14/undercover-video-claims-planned-parenthood-uses-partial-birth-abortions-to-sell-baby-parts/    ] video: https://youtu.be/jjxwVuozMnU   full-footage video:  https://youtu.be/H4UjIM9B9KQ

2.       July 21, 2015, “Senior Executive Haggles over Baby Parts Prices, Changes Abortion Methods” Showing a Planned Parenthood executive negotiating compensation for extracted baby organs.    This is the one in which Mary Gatter quipped, “If it’s still low, we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.” [   http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/planned-parenthood-proves-that-pro-choicers-hate-women/    ] video: https://youtu.be/MjCs_gvImyw  full-footage: https://youtu.be/vwAGsjoorvk

3.       July 28, 2015, “Human Capital—Episode 1: Planned Parenthood’s Black Market in Baby Parts”  video: https://youtu.be/Xw2xi9mhmuo

4.       July 30, 2015, “Planned Parenthood VP Says Fetuses May Come Out Intact, Agrees Payments Specific to the Specimen”   video: https://youtu.be/GWQuZMvcFA8  full-footage video: https://youtu.be/wV2U9unI1NM

5.       August 4, 2015, “Intact Fetuses "Just a Matter of Line Items" for Planned Parenthood TX Mega-Center”     video: https://youtu.be/egGUEvY7CEg   full-footage video: https://youtu.be/MCiD9_ICt44  supplement to full-footage: https://youtu.be/wISHuLTKhYE

6.       August 12, 2015, “Human Capital - Episode 2: Inside the Planned Parenthood Supply Site”  video: https://youtu.be/ABzFZM73o8M  

7.       August 19, 2015, “Human Capital - Episode 3: Planned Parenthood's Custom Abortions for Superior Product”  video: https://youtu.be/FzMAycMMXp8  

8.       August 25, 2015, “Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Buyer StemExpress Wants ‘Another 50 Livers/Week’”  video: https://youtu.be/cz1gRNPgMvE   full-footage video: https://youtu.be/jCQno6hdU6s

9.       September 1, 2015, “Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Vendor ABR Pays Off Clinics, Intact Fetuses ‘Just Fell Out’”   video: https://youtu.be/ndJMawjoyPc  full-footage video: https://youtu.be/fWJb78ynVT8

10.    September 1, 2015, “Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest Dr. Katharine Sheehan”  full-footage video:  https://youtu.be/69mC-B9aFJk

11.   September 15, 2015, “Top Planned Parenthood Exec: Baby Parts Sales ‘A Valid Exchange,’ Can Make ‘A Fair Amount of Income’”   video: https://youtu.be/c9EU_02c5bM

a.       Dr. Carolyn Weshoff, Planned Parenthood’s senior medical adviser, talks of dividing up the dead babies over dinner and wine. She says her clients don’t want stem cells, but “particular tissues” like “cardiac” or “eyes” or “neural” or “spinal cords.” She says they can sell any part. Laughing, she says even “gonads—oh my God, gonads.” Full-footage video: https://youtu.be/oar7sw0UtOg

b.       Dr. Vanessa Collins, another high ranking Planned Parenthood official, admits that these transactions could “destroy” their organization if they don’t “time the conversations correctly.” Full-footage video: https://youtu.be/1y1X1IaU2gQ

c.       Deb VanDerhei, the national director for the Consortium of Abortion Providers at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, asks the buyer (filmmaker) if he “just wants livers.” He says he’s looking for everything. She asks about “remuneration”; i.e., money. She worries that these money issues must be handled “carefully” because “the headlines would be a disaster.” She says PPFA doesn’t have a policy on “tissue procurement,” which, she admits, “is relatively intentional.” Full-footage video: https://youtu.be/2m7VbmHXwcU

d.       Dr. Deborah Nucatola, (who was in video 1) says there “are no guidelines” concerning pricing and procedures for procuring body parts, and “there will never be guidelines.” PPFA affiliates can’t violate a nonexistent policy; they are free to do whatever they want. “Nothing is written,” she says again.

e.       VanDerhei, still concerned about the “headlines,” says she wants clinics to sell baby parts if it’s “worth it”; i.e., if the compensation is enough. She says she knows they can “generate a fair amount of income doing this,” despite public claims to the contrary. She talks only face-to-face with a buyer, but says she’s “not comfortable having the conversation through email,” which could be used as evidence. Full-footage video: https://youtu.be/_69Brx1-OaI

f.        Vanessa Russo, an official with Planned Parenthood Keystone, says she “won’t be bullied by ridiculous law.” She doesn’t think Planned Parenthood “should curtail its business for ridiculousness”; i.e., the law. VanDerhei tells Russo that PPFA has given approval to “go for it” and collect “remuneration.” Full-footage video: https://youtu.be/Y8fmFDRZqEs

12.   October 27, 2015  “Planned Parenthood TX Abortion Apprentice Taught Partial-Birth Abortion to ‘Strive For’ Intact Heads”  video: https://youtu.be/2tgez97aG74  full-footage video: https://youtu.be/ZkaZYQ8ZGTE

13.   January 5, 2016  “’PROFIT’—Planned Parenthood's Illicit Moneymaking From Baby Body Parts”  video: https://youtu.be/9K82Oyd-lv8

14.   January 12, 2016  “’HARVEST’—Planned Parenthood's Custom Abortions for Better Baby Parts”  video: https://youtu.be/J_k1d0dt2ac

15.     January 19, 2016  “’COVER-UP’—Planned Parenthood's Attempt to Hide their Baby Body Parts Scheme”  video: https://youtu.be/GBXRzmqBdGY

I don’t know if you were able to get through even all the short clips. This is grisly and disturbing stuff. But that is reality in the baby-killing culture.

Given the evidence, does Planned Parenthood appear to be completely innocent, worthy of exoneration of all charges? Thinking, law-abiding citizens wouldn’t think so.

The standard for a grand jury is not the same as a trial; the standard is probably cause. Is there enough evidence to merit a trial? Nine of twelve jurors must believe the evidence is adequate for probable cause to go ahead and indict. With less than ¾ of the jury, they no-bill; they say there is insufficient evidence to indict.

The purpose of the grand jury is to prevent a prosecutor from running rough-shod. They are a back-up, to prevent political persecution, for example. In theory, it’s a good idea.

The grand jury is called from among the citizens, not for a single case, but for as many cases as come up during a time frame. In HarrisCounty, this is six months. Ten grand juries are impaneled each half year, with five grand juries serving for three-month periods. They meet two days a week during their assigned months. They receive nominal pay, as do other jurors.

Unlike other juries, the grand jury handles as many cases in a day as can be fit in. So, while they were presented the evidence generally, they probably did not spend a full day or two watching all the videos and examining the subpoenaed documents. They would have received a briefing of what that evidence entailed.

They didn’t, as it appeared, throw out the Planned Parenthood evidence and then say, “But, wait—getting that evidence on video must have crossed a line; let’s indict the undercover filmmakers.” That would have been an additional, separate case brought before them.

Both of those cases had pressure behind them. Governor Abbott, a good judge and attorney himself (Texas’s Attorney General before becoming Governor), said there was evidence against Planned Parenthood based on the videos and subpoenaed documents, and we would prosecute. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations insisted that they had been set up, and distorted, and insisted the filmmakers must have done something unlawful.

There have been instances where prosecutors don’t get what they want with one grand jury and “shop” for another, and another. The Harris County District Attorney is sticking with a policy not to do that.

A friend, who is a prosecutor under DA Devon Anderson, reposted her video statement, which I appreciated. She cleared up several misconceptions.

[I've tried to embed the video, but I'm unable. Please follow this link for the 2 1/2-minute video.]

I’m willing to respect her, and to trust, for now, the system generally. But I do think we have a problem, if we have jurors who, because of personal leanings, ignore evidence and the law. We can’t know what happened; we weren’t in that grand jury room. But Harris County is exactly 50% Democrat and 50% Republican. A high percentage of Republicans see abortion as evil and recognize the evil shown in the videos—even the evil that might be legal but is clearly unethical and disturbing. A high percentage of Democrats are pro-abortion and repeat the Planned Parenthood lies that they do mostly women’s health, not abortions, and that they follow the law. They are quick to believe whatever talking point Planned Parenthood puts out.

So, is it possible that the jury ignored the evidence and the law because of their personal leanings on the abortion issue? It would have only taken four of twelve of them to do so. That is my guess.

Is that the end of the story? No. This was one case, against the local Houston multi-story facility of Planned Parenthood. Not all the videos applied to this location. Other suits will go forward. Other grand juries are likely to indict.

If nothing else, the world got a glimpse of what abortionists say and do when they think they’re talking with people approve of their baby-killing culture. We witnessed their cavalier butchery. They are savage. And we have seen the evil with our own eyes.

As for the indicted filmmakers, I don’t know what will happen. DA Anderson says that the case would have been an easily handled misdemeanor, except that they crossed state lines with the false IDs. I wish them well in trial. They did a risky, disturbing job, and we sincerely thank them.

Politically Correct or Not

Political—related to polarized, competing worldviews, particularly competing movements for power over the people

Correct—in alignment with prescribed answers, views, statements, opinions

So, politically correct means aligned with a particular polarity that wants to control others and maintain power. It has nothing to do with being tolerant and polite.

A few weeks ago I read a piece that detailed the definition, and outlined its use as propaganda: “PC Is about Control, Not Etiquette,” by Jeff Diest, in an issue of The Austrian, for The Mises Institute. I’d be satisfied just to concur with him. But for this post I’ll quote liberally from that piece, and then do some application related to current events.

If PC truly was about kindness and respect, it wouldn’t need to be imposed on us. After all, we already have a mechanism for the social cohesion PC is said to represent: it’s called manners. And we already have specific individuals charged with insuring that good manners are instilled and upheld: they’re called parents.

Diest offers a definition of political correctness, similar to mine, and asserts that it is best understood as propaganda:

Political correctness is the conscious, designed manipulation of language intended to change the way people speak, write, think, feel, and act, in furtherance of an agenda.

PC is best understood as propaganda, which is how I suggest we approach it. But unlike propaganda, which historically has been used by governments to win favor for a particular campaign or effort, PC is all-encompassing. It seeks nothing less than to mold us into modern versions of Marx’s un-alienated society man, freed of all his bourgeois pretensions and humdrum social conventions.

While we’re quoting, Diest quotes Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

[T]he masters … stipulate that aggression, invasion, murder and war are actually self-defense, whereas self-defense is aggression, invasion, murder and war. Freedom is coercion, and coercion is freedom. … Taxes are voluntary payments, and voluntarily paid prices are exploitative taxes. In a PC world, metaphysics is diverted and rerouted. Truth becomes malleable, to serve a bigger purpose determined by our superiors.

This ought to bring to mind the scripture, Isaiah 5:20:

20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Political correctness is a lie imposed on people. It is the antithesis of free speech—and simultaneously the antithesis of social caring. It isn’t about being tolerant and kind; it is about bulling to force submission.

The bully of political correctness is always what the world terms liberal. Let’s reframe that using Spherical Model terms, which are more accurate, since “liberal” in this context has nothing to do with freedom or open-mindedness. Political correctness is the propaganda that enforces southern hemisphere tyranny. People who love freedom, prosperity, and civilization are the target of PC propaganda.

I don’t want to use a lot of space delineating the examples. So, just a few of the truths that are labeled politically incorrect:

·         Marriage is between one man and one woman.

·         Judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

·         All lives matter.

·         Abortion kills an innocent human being.

·         Men and women are different

·         A person’s gender is biological and unchangeable.

·         A person’s sexual orientation may be determined by many factors, but can change, and doesn’t determine behavior.

·         Religious people live their religion every day, not just at church on Sunday.

·         People have the right to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

·         People should feel secure in their person and papers, even when they have nothing to hide.

·         People who commit crimes should be held accountable—even if they had a bad childhood or other social disadvantages.

·         The person who earns money should be the one to decide how to spend it—even if that person makes more than someone else.

·         Disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean we hate them or consider them our enemies.

·         “Climate change” science isn’t settled.

·         Immigrants should enter our country legally and intend to become Americans, respecting our culture and our Constitution.

·         Enforcing our borders does not mean hating immigrants.

People who believe these basic obvious truths—who happen to be conservatives, almost exclusively—have been shut out of the debate, bullied, silenced with “political correctness” for so long, there’s a growing frustration and anger. They (we) are being bullied.

It is into that steaming, silent, seemingly powerless fuming that Donald Trump steps. It appears that someone is standing up to the bully. And people cheer for that. Sometimes to the point that they fail to realize that he isn’t their champion.

He is his own propaganda machine. He is a new bully. He sets a different list of what can and cannot be said—and he enforces it with his considerable power, influence, and money, and in a way that goads the media into magnifying for him.

Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly
photo: John Minchillo--AP

As I write, I’m watching the Trump-free GOP debate, which Trump is boycotting because he’s been having a feud with Megyn Kelly, since her “politically incorrect—to him” questioning in the first Fox debate in August.

To review, this is the exchange, from the transcript:

KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don’t use a politician’s filter. However, that is not without its downsides, in particular, when it comes to women. You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.” Your Twitter account…

TRUMP: Only Rosie O’Donnell.

KELLY: No, it wasn’t. Your Twitter account…

TRUMP: Thank you.

KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.

TRUMP: Yes, I’m sure it was.

KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks. You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president, and how will you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who was likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

TRUMP: I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody.

And frankly, what I say, and oftentimes it’s fun, it’s kidding. We have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly Megyn, if you don’t like it, I’m sorry. I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that.

But you know what, we — we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That, I can tell you right now.

I highlighted the actual question. The answer is, essentially, “I was just kidding.” For that “attack on him,” even though he said he wouldn’t do such a thing, after the debate he started an ongoing attack on Megyn Kelly. It may be shocking that the details she used would be brought up to a presidential candidate—since they were pretty much ignored for Bill Clinton. But the question itself was reasonable, in not very substantive, and pertinent to this candidate. But it wasn’t pro-Trump, so he insists it’s bad journalism.

In another debate he admitted to a possible weakness. Here’s what he said: 

TRUMP: I think maybe my greatest weakness is that I trust people too much. I’m too trusting. And when they let me down, if they let me down, I never forgive. I find it very, very hard to forgive people that deceived me. So I don’t know if you would call that a weakness, but my wife said “let up.”

I would call that a weakness. A serious one.

So, how do you get attacked by Donald Trump? You cross him. You disagree with him. You let his own flaws become clear to the public. Or you simply get in his way. (Example here.)

He attacks with lies. He bullies. He manipulates. He publicly demeans.

How is that different from “political correctness” if you’re someone who doesn’t agree with him? It isn’t.

Trump isn’t standing up against political correctness per se; he’s standing up against the current propaganda and plans to replace it with his own.

If you do not agree with him, succumb to him, worship him, you risk being squashed under his very big shoe, you inconsequential bug.

Diest isn’t including Trump in his discussion. I’m making that addition. But Diest tells us that PC is indeed dangerous:

Understand that the PC enforcers are not asking you, they’re not debating you, and they don’t care about your vote. They don’t care whether they can win at the ballot box, or whether they use extralegal means. There are millions of progressives in the US who absolutely would criminalize speech that does not comport with their sense of social justice.

One poll suggests 51 percent of Democrats and 1/3 of all Americans would do just that.

A different flavor—a more brash and vulgar voice—is no less a problem for freedom-loving Americans.

Diest offers some suggestions about standing up to PC, wherever it comes from:

This is not to say that bucking PC can’t hurt you: the possible loss of one’s job, reputation, friends, and even family is very serious. But defeatism is never called for, and it makes us unworthy of our ancestors.

Use humor to ridicule PC. PC is absurd, and most people sense it. And its practitioners suffer from a comical lack of self-awareness and irony. Use every tool at your disposal to mock, ridicule, and expose PC for what it is.

Never forget that society can change very rapidly in the wake of certain precipitating events. We certainly all hope that no great calamity strikes America, in the form of an economic collapse, a currency collapse, an inability to provide entitlements and welfare, energy shortages, food and water shortages, natural disasters, or civil unrest. But we can’t discount the possibility of these things happening.

And if they do, I suggest that PC language and PC thinking will be the first ornament of the state to go. Only rich, modern, societies can afford the luxury of a mindset that does not comport with reality, and that mindset will be swiftly swept aside as the “rich” part of America frays.

I don’t want some dire calamity to wake us up. I’m totally in favor of thinking, reading, and doing the right thing without hardship. I’m not good at ridicule, even when exposing ideas (not in favor of ridiculing people, and I don’t think Diest is either). But I appreciate a good political cartoon or satire. Good luck to those who can do those things well.

Lacking those skills, let me just remind that speaking truth, in families, is where recovery begins, so we freedom loving people have the strength to stand up to the bullies.

Comparing Resumes, Part II

Here we are a week before the first (Iowa) primary, so we’re looking at the top two Republican candidates. In Part I, we looked at Ted Cruz’s qualifications. Today we’ll look at Donald Trump.

We’ll start with the resume.  I didn’t find it listed out exactly like Ted Cruz’s, but between Wikipedia and various other sources, we can get the basics.

Trump at New Hampshire townhall,
August 2015
photo from Wikipedia

·         Born and raised in Queens, New York, son of real estate magnate Fred Trump.

·         Attended private Kew-Forest School, where his father was on the board of trustees.

·         Attended New York Military Academy for high school.

·         Attended Fordham University for two years, and then finished at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, earning a BS in Economics in 1968, specializing in real estate.

·         He was eligible for the draft during the Viet Nam War era, but got four education deferments, followed by a health deferment related to heel spurs (he doesn’t remember in which foot).

·         He was given a job at the family real estate business, Elizabeth Trump and Son.

·         Three years out of college, following several successful real estate projects with his father, he was given control of the company and changed the name to The Trump Organization.

·         Successful projects include the conversion of the Commodore Hotel to the Grand Hyatt, the Javits Convention Center, repairs on the Wollman Rink in New York City, and Trump Tower.

·         Following problems with the Taj Mahal casino, He underwent a business bankruptcy in 1991, following failure to pay loans. Three other of his businesses also went through bankruptcies.

·         Upon the death of his father, he received a quarter share of $250-300 million inheritance.

·         His net worth is estimated by Forbes as $4 billion.

·         Trump claims his net worth is $8.7 billion, but at least $3.3 billion of that consists of "Real Estate Licensing Deals, Brand and Branded Developments," described by Business Insider as "basically [implying] that Trump values his character at $3.3 billion."

·         Besides real estate, his investments and projects include some stock market investments (a small portion), sports (including WWE and Wrestlemania), beauty pageants (particularly the Miss Universe Organization), and media.

·         He is most well-known for his reality television show The Apprentice, which began in 2003. He filed a trademark application for the phrase, “You’re fired.”

·         He claims to be close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and invited them to his daughter’s wedding.

·         He has listed his party affiliation as Republican, Independence Party, Democrat, and "decline to state." He toyed with a presidential run as a Reform Party candidate in 2000. He considered presidential runs in 1988, 2004, and 2012 but did not register to run, and also as New York governor in 2006.

·         He has contributed to both Democrat and Republican candidates; of the top ten, six were Democrat, and four were Republican. After 2011, his donations leaned more toward Republicans.

·         While it was the Hillary Clinton campaign that started the “birther” question about Barack Obama in 2008, Trump pursued it. He is currently pressing a “birther” movement against his closest competitor, Ted Cruz.

·         He has declined donations for his campaign, claiming that makes him free from obligations to donors; it also takes away the ability to compare his fundraising to others, as a measure of support.

·         Following his announcement to run in June, he has been a major news topic, which has allowed him to receive media attention with very little campaign expenditure. On December 28, 2015, Trump was named the Top Name in Global English by the Global Language Monitor finishing ahead of Pope Francis, Vladimir Putin, and Angela Merkel.

·         His populist campaign theme is, “We are going to make our country great again," with a second most common phrase being, “Believe me.” Details are scarce, but his tax plan gives less relief to the middle class than the plans provided by all the other candidates.

·         His main issue is the border. He uses a broad brush. He says we will build a wall on the southern border and Mexico will pay for it (because his strong personality will make them pay for it). He has recently suggested refusing entry to any Muslims, until the US has a better vetting process. As recently as last summer, he was in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal aliens. His current plan appears to be what is referred to as “touchback”: deport long enough for technicality, then immediately allow re-entry with a path to citizenship.

·         He has supported Planned Parenthood, opposed limiting partial-birth abortion, and until a nuanced recent change has supported pro-abortion policies.

·         Has supported Obama and his policies, saying: “He understands how the economy works on a comprehensive level. He has also surrounded himself with very competent people, and that’s the mark of a strong leader.”

·         He has supported single-payer socialized health care for years, and has made no promise to repeal Obamacare.

·         He supported the 2009 stimulus and Obama’s efforts to nationalize banks.

·         He claims to be a Christian, specifically Presbyterian, but seldom attends church more than at Easter and Christmas; he once said that his favorite book is the Bible—they are often given to him as gifts, and he keeps them in some unspecified special place that is not his office or his home. He has disparaged the religious beliefs of both Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. He has no history of supporting First Amendment religious freedom rights.

·         He claims to have never felt the need to ask for forgiveness for anything.

·         He supports the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

·         He described his socially liberal views as “New York values,” but attacked Cruz for repeating that phrase, accusing Cruz of disparaging the New Yorkers who survived the World Trade Center attacks.

·         He responds to criticism with swift retaliation, often using untruths and vulgarities to disparage those he considers his enemies.

·         He doesn’t agree that Obama’s executive actions are unlawful and plans to use that end-run around Congress himself—only doing things he likes, instead of things Obama likes, which he asserts makes all the difference.

·         He supports the use of imminent domain to confiscate property from some individuals to make it available to other private entities who want to develop the land for profit.

·         He has been married three times. He and first wife, Ivana, have three children (including daughter Ivanka, who is executive vice-president of The Trump Organization); they were divorced after 13 years of marriage because of his long-running affair with Marla Maples. Maples gave birth to their daughter in 1991; they were married in 1993 and divorced in 1997. He failed in attempts to court Princess Di, following her divorce, while he was still married. His current wife is Slovenian-born model Melania Knauss, whom he began seeing in 1998 and married in 2004. She became a naturalized citizen the following year, and gave birth to son Barron William Trump.

While Trump makes a vaguely positive claim that he can “make America great again,” he offers no indication that he will apply the Constitution to do that.

Rather than compare Trump's resume to Cruz's, I'm going to do a little comparison with Mitt Romney's.

The claim that Trump is a great businessman falls flat coming from those who weren’t satisfied with Mitt Romney four years ago. Romney didn’t have a fortune handed to him, and a company placed in his lap. His education was not provided by parental patronage. Romney worked hard, while raising a family, and earned both law and MBA degrees from Harvard. He worked hard at jobs he got himself, and his work came to encompass helping other businesses succeed. He became the turnaround expert, which came into play when he left the business world to enter public service, first with the Salt Lake Olympics, and then as governor of Massachusetts.

Romney lived life as a free-market capitalist. Trump embodies crony-capitalism. He does business by buying and trading favors with people who can do something for him. Maybe he’s running, in the first place, because the possibility of a Cruz presidency—or anyone else willing to enforce the Constitution—would put an end to his crony-capitalist power, and he wasn’t willing to let that happen.

Romney was never for socialized, single-payer health care, and was against forcing Massachusetts citizens to buy health care, preferring to use incentives rather than penalties. While I think Massachusetts went too far—because 87% of its Congress was Democrat—Romney and The Heritage Foundation had prevented much worse. Any claim that “Romneycare” was the forefunner of Obamacare is an outright lie.  Yet Trump is all for Obama’s actual socialized medicine scheme.

Romney was known by friends and fellow businessmen as scrupulously honest and ethical. No one makes those claims about Trump. There are hundreds of lawsuits against him. He is considered ruthless and opportunistic. He seems to not have close friends beyond wives and girlfriends.

Romney has always been known as generous and giving. Trump gives when it benefits him and builds connections, or obligates people to him.

Romney was berated for having very slight changes in policy toward abortion (change from “as governor, I don’t expect to have any effect on Roe v. Wade and don’t plan to change the law” to “when a law to make abortion more available comes before me as governor, I can’t sign that”). Trump has been openly pro-abortion, even to support partial-birth abortion; during the campaign suddenly he claims to think abortion is a bad idea, because of a servant’s experience. But he hasn’t done anything to prove any sudden change to pro-life views.

Romney was berated in 2008 as an outsider, because he was a governor and hadn’t spent years working with the national party. He spent four years, at his own expense, supporting the most conservative Republican candidates he could find, all around the country, and proved his loyalty to the party. In 2012 he was berated as an insider/moderate. Trump, a progressive, can’t even prove he didn’t vote for Obama, once or twice, and receives a pass for his lack of Republican—let alone conservative—bona fides. In the last couple of weeks, even the party establishment is starting to embrace him, because he’s a deal maker, and they can compromise with him, which they fear they cannot do with Ted Cruz, whose loyalty lies with the Constitution.

Trump’s appeal seems to be based entirely on his brash willingness to speak his mind. Fine. But his mind isn’t focused on truth—he claims truth is whatever he says it is right now. He isn’t focused on limiting the government to the Constitution. He isn’t focused on the basic economic principle of allowing the person earning the money to decide how to spend it. He isn’t focused on God-given rights, and moving society to live the civilizing Ten Commandments—valuing God, family, life, truth, and property.

In Spherical Model terms, he’s firmly in the southern hemisphere, where you get tyranny, poverty, and savagery. Trump offers an alternate flavor of those bad ends, but nothing that would lead us out of those negatives.

Would he be better than a communist/socialist/progressive Democrat? Unknown. Totally depends on what he has the urge to do on any given day. He’s a power-monger. He’s a crony-capitalist. He’s a serial adulterer. That puts him southern hemisphere in the political, economic, and social spheres.

It’s not like he’s the least of various evils; he’s the least conservative of the GOP options. It’s hard to be certain that he would be the lesser of two evils up against an open socialist.

So why is Trump getting so much traction? 

My only guess is that he has a lot of money to buy outcomes. He is a media celebrity. And, just like in high school where the “most popular” person wins the class elections, people who support him are doing so for the shallowest of reasons.

The future of our great nation is at stake, because too many people like in-your-face brashness, regardless of content of words or content of character.

If you love freedom, prosperity, and civilization, a vote for Cruz gives us hope for that. A vote for Trump guarantees that we may lose it for decades, maybe forever.

You don’t want to take my word for it? Besides the collection of 22 conservatives weighing in at National Review last week (“Conservatives against Trump”) here are a few more worth reading:

·         “You Hate It from Barack Obama. But You Love Itfrom Donald Trump,” Rick Wilson

·         “The Establishment's Irrational Fear of Ted Cruz,” David Limbaugh

·         "Where Was Donald Trump During the ImmigrationFight? Advocating Amnesty,” Streiff at Red State 

·         “Donald Trump’s New Ad Shows His Contempt ForVoters,” Streiff at Red State

·         “Paths to The Nomination: Trump, Cruz, and Rubio,” Robert Tracinski (This piece is about the campaign game, which goes against my grain, and I don’t agree with it in entirety, but I think the explanation of Trump support based on his TV celebrity is accurate.)

·         “When Conservatives Needed Allies, Donald TrumpSided with Obama,” Glenn Beck for National Review

·         "Donald Trump’s ‘Conversion’ Raises SeriousQuestions,” Dana Loesch