Liberals Must Have Mixed Emotions At Reports of Trump Mocking Pence

In what must be an ideologically and emotionally confusing read for liberals, the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer goes on the attack against Vice President Mike Pence and, in the process, manages to paint President Trump in a somewhat sympathetic light for social liberals who are critical of the Christian right.

The article, “The Danger of President Pence,” is essentially a hit piece on the vice president and a cautionary tale. “The worse the President looks, the more desirable his understudy seems,” Mayer writes, but then warns, “If the job is a gamble for Pence, he himself is something of a gamble for the country.”

It seems that, in spite of his loyalty to the unorthodox President Trump, Mike Pence is (gasp!) “’a full-spectrum conservative’ on social, moral, economic, and defense issues.” Mayer notes that Pence could be easily considered an establishment Republican who has strong connections to deep-pocketed Republican donors including the bogeymen of leftist dark money concerns, the Koch brothers.

Anti-religious leftists will enjoy the most-quoted sections of Mayer’s piece, those which detail how President Trump mocked Pence’s Christian beliefs. Mayer quotes several associates and staff members who say that Trump likes to “let Pence know who’s boss.” Trump reportedly asks people who have met with the vice president, “Did Mike make you pray?”

The president also reportedly teased Pence about his pro-life views and his opposition to the gay rights movement. Sources say that in a meeting with a legal scholar who pointed out that states might choose to legalize abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned, Trump said, “You see? You’ve wasted all this time and energy on it, and it’s not going to end abortion anyway.”

When talk at the same meeting turned to homosexuality, Trump gestured toward Pence. “Don’t ask that guy,” Trump said. “He wants to hang them all!”

The New Yorker article paints Vice President Pence as someone who believes what he says and who acts on those beliefs. Mayer includes a laundry list of socially conservative issues where Pence took stands as governor of Indiana, from tax cuts (“Pence’s commitment to the Kochs was now ironclad”) to the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, although he does get a pat on the back from her for opting in to Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

Interestingly, Mayer points out that both the height of Trump’s campaign and the biggest scandal that he has faced are both linked to Mike Pence. Pence’s connections to Republican donors made Trump’s election victory possible. Pence also helped make Trump palatable to Midwestern and Christian voters who were not natural supporters of the brash New Yorker.

At the opposite extreme, Pence was embroiled in the Michael Flynn firing that ultimately grew into the full-fledged Russia investigation. Unlike the other potential VP candidate, Chris Christie, Pence did not raise objections to Flynn’s appointment as National Security Advisor. Flynn was fired in February for lying to Pence about contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition period.

Although Trump’s mocking comments are what has generated the headlines, Mayer’s main message is that, if Trump is impeached or forced to resign, liberals might like Pence even less. “Democrats should hope Trump stays in office,” said Democrat strategist Harold Ickes, noting that Pence would likely be much more effective at working with Congress and implementing a conservative agenda.

The “Fake News” Narrative Is An Old Story

This #FakeNews madness is a headache. The term, coined to describe actual fake news sites that publish not-obvious parody has been co-opted by my fellow conservatives to describe anything perceived to be not conservative. It’s most popular among those for whose deceiving it actually described.

In fact, the last two years social media proliferated with fabricated or purposely exaggerated stories, ironically claiming actual news orgs were fake.  We also now know that the majority of these websites were fabricated, and even promoted at cost by Russian interests. But we ate them up, cuz… “HILLARY!”

It led an entire section of the voting public to believe only subjective truth. It could be said that many of us in the conservative media world became that which we fought: a self-confirming bias that focused on traffic and influence, rather than the truth.

Journalism is a craft. It’s authority is often driven by those most passionate about it. Nearly every journalist you’ll find wants the truth, not their vision of it. Not to say some won’t stray. Some will, and always have. But it’s rare. Real journalists can’t sleep. They ache during the day when they can’t write a story. They hate not having that last piece of information they need to confirm something. They hate being lied to. They’re VERY good BS detectors. Some veterans call it a “disease” you can’t escape.


First of all, to me there’s a difference between the “press,” and “media.” The “press” means delivering substance, from digging in public information files and conducting boring interviews to sitting in mundane public meetings. The “media” to me has always symbolized the latest foray into sensationalism, and focuses on audience over substance.

The latter pays the bills, so outlets have almost always been some combination of the two. Some focus on one over the other.

In the late 18th and early 19th century, most of the press was consolidated in a few major publications, usually sponsored by political parties. Particularly during campaigns, papers got vicious. Occasionally, they’d flat out lie without much recourse. But even then, the founders insisted first on freedom of the press in the constitution. Since they were mostly political, this clearly involved campaign behavior.

Things changed during the early to mid-1800’s, with the advent of the “penny press,” brought by increases in technology and communication. During this time, democratization of the press resulted in hundreds of publications and various perspectives, along with misinformation. But, still a valuable tool of accountability, and check on power.

Late in the 19th century, and into the middle of the 20th, “yellow journalism” was born, as publishers such as Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst consolidated these papers again, under their respective umbrellas, for the purpose of harnessing political and economic power. (Yes, ironically, Pulitzer supported dishonest news because it sold well. So did Hearst. “Pulitzer prize” was established by his fortune to reward journalist he would likely have never hired. 😉) Modern “tabloid” media was born, as graphics and eye catching front pages became the driving source of most papers.

This of course was disrupted with new technology again, as radio and television in the early 20th century put strains on the traditional press mechanism. People wanted different and new perspectives. However, consolidation set in again over the next several decades, as these entities became similar to each other. There is some debate about what led to this “virtual consolidation” in mentality. I believe the strong nationalistic vibe after the war, combined with a natural trust that followed in the next couple of decades aided this.

While it has its downsides, this consolidation pattern we’ve begun seeing does eliminate inconsistency of public information. But it also led to negligence in government. (See: Vietnam war, Nixon, corruption schemes)

Enter the next technological revolution in the 1990’s: the internet. It democratized the press even further than the 19th century did, leading to more and more opinion and sensationalism (read: the NEW yellow journalism), and less and less *tradecraft* among journalists. This is where we are in 2017.

However, if history is our guide, we will once again see a consolidation of these various outlets in the years ahead. So, are we at the tail end of this democratization pattern, or still in the middle of it?

Regardless of the patterns, the free flow of information, and public awareness has consistently grown. I think that is a good thing.

Throughout history, public trust in the press has gone back and forth, and often for good reason. But, the journalism trade has stayed consistent. It maintains certain standards that you can bank on. Does bias exist? Sure, among writers AND readers alike. (That means you too!) An editor can omit, exaggerate or even tilt a headline or narrative. But actual “fake news” is very rare among the more established outlets. As long as journalists are human, they will always make mistakes, but they rarely flat out lie. Doing so would end their job. The elements you should look for in deciphering truth is not that it confirms your own bias, but that it employs a few standards that have separated the wheat from the chaff.

Ask yourself:

1. Do they have multiple sources for the story (at least two, most three or more)?
2. Is the narrative informative, or implicative?
3. If the issue presents contrasting sides, does it present a quote – or citation of one – from both/all sides?
4. Was the story rushed, or has it been at least updated since publication?  Almost all news stories evolve/grow over time. 
5. Does the story use pronouns or proper names in telling its story? Or is it informal and colloquial?
6. Do they source the story by hat-tipping other journalistic works or original source documents? Doing so shows confidence in a story. Consistency of a story strengthens its veracity.

Even with these standards, mistakes happen. But it doesn’t make for “fake news.” It makes for imperfect, but necessary news. Because they do the hard work we often can’t.

And as a personal note, do you occasionally find a story irritating to read as I do? That’s usually a good sign that you’re being challenged by a news source.

You should be. Stick with it.

#FakeHate #RealNewsHurts

From the Clowncar to the Profane: Ryan’s Challenger Goes Gutter

Most people challenge incumbents because of a disagreement in policy, or they doubt their integrity. But, one opponent is showing their campaign may not be all that serious, and could be more about getting attention than changing things. This year, it appears to be recent Wisconsin activist, Paul Nehlen. RightWisconsin, a popular regional journalistic site said it best: “It’s tempting to think of Paul Nehlen as a bad joke.”

Nehlen, a businessman and a-bunch-of-other-things-no-one-can-establish is running against sitting Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who is also serving as Speaker of the House. Nehlen ran an unsuccessful primary campaign against Ryan two years ago, losing by nearly 70% in a multi-million dollar challenge that briefly claimed the support of then-candidate Donald Trump. His campaign was backed by “scam PAC” aficionado Dan Backer. Before then, no one in the 1st district had ever heard of this Nehlen guy, or vouch for who he was.

After his big loss, he submitted his name for Speaker of the House (being a congressman is not a constitutional requirement).

For the record, he didn’t get any votes.

In the days following the election, he got himself entangled in a two-month police investigation by tweeting his marked ballot voting for himself (such ballot selfies are illegal in Wisconsin to avoid vote-selling), and eliminated the evidence before cooperating with local police.

While he’s claimed to be more conservative than Speaker Ryan, Nehlen has staked out a decidedly populist stance on most issues, and makes his support of President Trump a centerpiece of his effort. But, he may be showing more than just support for his favorite personality, and trying to sound like him as well.

No stranger to the profane, President Trump became known to his base as a man who “tells it like it is,” which usually included misogynistic insults, swearing, f-bombs, multiple threats, conspiratorial slander, childish rants against the media – pretty much any critic. Nehlen thinks it worked well for him, or perhaps in spite of him. So, Nehlen has decided to add this feature to his own campaign. He’s just a real hoot.

This week, he referred to the 800,000 DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) applicants as “mo-fos,” and fashioned his insult into a patriotic sing-song.

“Mo-fo” is shorthand for mother****er, for those who stick to PG movies.

This was not a retweet, a midnight “like” due to a staffer… they were his words.

His Twitter feed usually centers around the single issue of immigration (he’s a nationalist), endorsements for conspiracy theories like Pizzagate (no, really), and links to fake news websites and conservative tabloids even Breitbart won’t entertain. But, Twitter is not his only domain, as he has shown a propensity for immature spittle on Facebook as well, referring to the Speaker consistently as “Pablo Ryan,” and calling other political leaders degrading names.

As RightWisconsin observed, Nehlen may think his antics are funny, but there’s nothing humorous in using obscenities in public, and making racist appeals for votes.

I agree. I look forward to voting for my congressman, again, and sending this clown back to wherever he came from before 2015.

If someone wishes to primary incumbents, that’s their right and privilege in this great country. But, making a mockery of the system is a shameful act of self-aggrandizement none of us should entertain.


This column is the expressed opinion of the contributor, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or endorsement of the editor or The Resurgent.


The Conservative We Know: Vukmir Joins Wisconsin’s US Senate Race

It was mid-December, and my phone rang with a name familiar among Wisconsin Republicans. State Senator Leah Vukmir was calling because I had posted a picture of her capitol office door on Facebook granting permission to – nay, inviting – safe gun owners to enter her office.

Wisconsin is one of those “radical” states that allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights on every square inch of state property, unless otherwise requested;  some recalcitrant Democrats have posted the adorable “peace” signs banning defensive weapons. My caption: “suffice it to say, Vukmir’s office is the safest in the building.”

She’s also a trained registered nurse, and knows how to save my life. But her calling  since 2001 has been to serve the public in another way, fighting for conservative principles – before it was cool – first in the assembly, then the state senate. Her first race was to replace the seat vacated by then-assemblyman, and future conservative governor Scott Walker. There was no drop-off.

Now, she wants to take her ideas, our ideas, the ideas that work, to the US Senate. Her only other declared opponent in the primary is a recent Republican convert, Kevin Nicholson. The winner goes on to face incumbent Tammy Baldwin, a lonely liberal Democrat next November.

I’m no fool, nor gullible – no politician of any influence keeps my conscience warm at all times. Every election we send conservatives to higher offices just to watch them appear to change their modus operandi, occasionally opposing things we value, or supporting programs we dislike. Compromise is a necessary evil of governing by committee. Sen Vukmir is human, as I am, and has a mind of her own, as do I.  But in our representative republic, we don’t elect people based on their compatability scores. Or at least we shouldn’t. We select them based on their wisdom, their instincts, and their fortitude.

Leah Vukmir has all three, in conservative spades. And she’s a spitfire, a proud Greek woman who tells it like it is.


The best primary is where you have a clear choice that is conservative because they have 16 years worth of a resume to prove it, not just because they claim to be.

In 2011, Wisconsin took on public union reform with Act 10, looking to break the self-perpetuating machine state Democrats and public employees had built, mandating union membership, forced dues, unaccountable budgets and a political machine that disenfranchised regular voters.

Vukmir had just become the senator for her district, beating a Democrat incumbent. (See? She’s done it before.)

Most Americans remember the drama of the Wisconsin protests at that time, the Democrats who fled the state, tens of thousands of protesters for months, and tree-hugging “solidarity singers” that made life hell for Vukmir and her colleagues. But she stood firm. In the face of death threats, stalking activists and national political pressure, she never backed down.

Not only did she stand firm, but the freshman senator stood in her chamber and persuaded her colleagues, saying “We cannot back down. If we do, no other state will consider doing the reforms we are trying to do here.” And they didn’t. And other states followed.

That’s a conservative we can trust.

But she was no one-trick pony. Vukmir is a policy wonk. She led the fight against Obamacare expansion in the state, proposed reforms to national common core standards, supported concealed carry, castle doctrine (defending your home), veteran benefit reforms, statewide school choice, right-to-work, prevailing wage reform (mandated pricing for public works), holding the line on property taxes, freezing state tuition at state colleges, and dozens of other first-time conservative changes. As Wisconsin has slowly replaced the aging progressive legacy of our state with conservative polices that work, Vukmir has usually been on the front line.

Next year, Wisconsin Republicans will choose the most electable conservative to represent the Party in November. The progress of conservative ideas in Washington depends on winning Democrat seats, and Wisconsin’s senate race is ripe for the taking. Every conservative in the country needs to back one we have seen in action, and send the Democratic anomaly we have in Tammy Baldwin back home.


This column is the expressed opinion of the contributor, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion or endorsement of the editor or The Resurgent.


“NevertRump” is SO 2016 – I’m Just a Conservative

It never fails… one word of opposition in a political group, I’m labeled. If I bear a tone of negativity during a discussion about the (current) president, epithets flow. And the most egregious: if I share a link from an actual news organization, I’m branded a “sheeple.”

How ironic.

For the last 18 months, a scarlet hashtag of political exile has become my Château d’If; I am called “nevertrump,” as though I’m a gentile in a land of puritans.

But seriously, the election was nearly a year ago. The height of the #NevertRump movement was last summer, and frankly, it’s SO 2016 – find a new line.

Give me a hyphenated label if you wish, or call me the opposition. But still, I’m just me: a conservative.

And so are millions of others. Including those who held their nose, closed their eyes, tore off their nametags and quietly voted for the most evil of two lessers last November. We are all STILL conservatives,  even if we criticize the president. And refusing to tow the line and “respect the president” after eight years of unified oppugnancy does not make us the polar opposite of our lifelong convictions. We aren’t “liberals” because we speak up for the same principles we once stood for on capitol lawns and in town halls across the country.

I called Obama – scratch that – YOU called Obama “arrogant,” a “liar,” “authoritarian,” and “secretive.” Now, each of those things are ok, because… “GORSUCH!”

How far we’ve come from the simplicity of the original Tea Party Movement. Now, being a consistent conservative is tantamount to being a Democrat. I’ve been called a traitor, and I bet you have too. Some days, it’s easier to be conservative at Berkeley than in a group of trumpublicans.

I have always been a conservative because of the beliefs that fall under its umbrella: small government, personal responsibility, federalism, republican representation, a moral society.

It was never defined by a single man, nor a single party. It wasn’t prescribed by my single mother as she raised me (she’s more moderate than I am), nor did my friends impress their philosophy upon me (I spent my formative years in Portland, OR). I am a conservative because it is my conviction. Therefore, why must I redefine it because of something less significant? He’s just a man.

Whether Donald Trump finishes four years, is impeached after the midterms or resigns sooner (please?), he will one day disappear.  Perhaps some other equally divisive figure will arise, but generally, such populists only come around every 40 or 50 years.

But conservatism is timeless. The principles that this nation were founded on are at least 400 years old. They will never go away,  because human nature is to progress, and conservatism works.

If my intellectual consistency, which occasionally pits me against even fellow conservatives in debate, gives you heartburn, that’s ok. It’s making it a personal attack and rhetorical fistfight that bores me. I get along more with my liberal friends at times because there are no pretenses. We debate methods more than results, and can usually move onto funny movie references or sports talk while “Tea Parties United” folks are still wishing for Senator McCain’s early death or screaming about procedural terms they never knew about before 2014, like “cloture.”


I understand that some of my conservative brethren made a decision to quietly support Trump against Hillary a year ago, even though I thought it was the wrong choice. Millions of us could not do so. But, saying I have an obligation to support this president after years of opposing a liberal one is ridiculous. I haven’t changed. While Trump was still a registered Democrat, donating to Harry Reid, Kamala Harris, and Chuck Schumer, and declaring Democrats as better stewards of the economy, I was the same as I am now: a constitutional conservative.

And I will be in every election forward.

I’m not #NevertRump anymore. That was then. I’m #NeverDishonest with myself. Im consistent. I’m a conservative.  The question should be, after all this, are you?

DR Radio

DR Radio: The White House Circus

Welcome to Dead Reckoning Radio! In this edition of DR Radio, the team looks at the ObamaCare repeal debacle, musical chairs in the White House, and the temptation to compromise our faith for a seat at the table or power. Also, Jay also takes the reins in the latest installment of DR Recommends.

For full show notes and to subscribe to our podcast, visit our website.

It’s Time for Trump to Dissolve the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

In an interview with the Washington Examiner Wednesday, President Trump expressed interest in splitting the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals after it has repeatedly overruled his actions in questionable ways.

But my advice to President Trump is to not just split the 9th Circuit, but rather to dissolve it altogether.

Why? The Left is very adept at weaponizing language and government to achieve their political ends.

What do I mean by ‘weaponizing?’ – simply put, turning institutions or conventions that ought to be neutral into offensive tools for implementing their agenda. In my video show last week, I covered some of the weaponization of language.

As for the weaponization of government and more specifically the Courts, we have seen over the last 40 or so years, the Left has repeatedly achieved political victories in the Courts which stand in clear conflict with the repeated democratic results of elections – such as on the issue of gay marriage  or with any known constitutional reality – such as inventing a right to privacy to invent a right to abortion – among other transgressions. (And it is for this reason I have advocated the Right more aggressively use the Courts as opposed to the ballot box to achieve victories…)

But to the point, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently the most egregious weaponization of government the Left currently wields, and as such, simply ought to be outright dissolved. Take their most potent weapon against the Constitution away, and do so in a completely Constitutional manner.

For those unfamiliar, the 9th Circuit Court is known for giving the Supreme Court fits with its rulings, on top of repeatedly blocking Trump’s actions in questionable ways. It is regularly one of, if not the most, overturned Circuit Court in the Country – with the Supreme Court overturning around 80% of the cases heard from the 9th Circuit. The causes for this high number have been thoroughly hashed out in other sources, but the raw numbers do not tell the full story.

The 9th Circuit Court has been repeatedly called out by the Supreme Court for egregious errors in judgement, and has recently been used by the Left to unilaterally halt large parts of President Trump’s agenda and overturn Federal and State Law – and its findings in doing so are often far outside its Constitutional authority.

We must remember, that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals exists solely at the discretion of the Congress. An act of Congress created the 9th Circuit for the purpose of adjudicating on laws and Executive Actions to ultimately ensure adherence to the Constitution. The 9th Circuit – or the 9th Circus as many commentators like to call it for its clownish legal behavior – by repeatedly making ridiculous rulings, trashing the Constitution, legislating as opposed to acting as a judiciary, and openly flaunting its role in preserving the Constitution has forfeited its right to exist as an institution. The Framers gave the Congress the power of oversight, and it’s far past time Congress exercise its authority.

To wit, here some of the more ridiculous recent findings of the 9th Circuit Court:

  • States suffer “Concrete and Particularized Injury” if illegal aliens can’t come to University classes;
  • The Federal Government doesn’t suffer “Irreparable Injury” if the Courts overrule immigration policy;
  • Courts can look to motive rather than text;
  • The Court refuses to strike down portions of laws/executive orders; (Daily Wire)
  • The Court can force States to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens;
  • And the Court can block a State from requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. (Conservative Review)

18 of the 25 judges on the Circuit are Democratic Appointees, and pointing this out of course is not to impugn their credibility or judgement, but it does indicate a significant implied institutional political bias.

With the Supreme Court only taking a very small percentage of cases from any of the Circuit Courts, something on the order of approximately .1%, the Left has found a judicial weapon to either enact sweeping partisan political change, and in the case of President Trump (and States like Arizona) block seemingly simple and Constitutional actions without much oversight.

As such, the 9th Circuit Court has ceased to be a politically neutral and constitutionally sound institution, and as easily as it was established by an Act of Congress, it can be dissolved. In its place, at least two new Circuit Courts ought to be established in the territories the 9th Circuit used to cover.

Constitutionally speaking, the dissolution of the Court is incontrovertible. The only Court organically formed by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. While this action would be highly politically controversial, it is clearly within the purview of the Congress. The Congress needs to start asserting its authority over the other Branches, and this would be a perfect start.

Recently, Congress has considered legislation to break up the 9th Circuit into multiple Courts (with President Trump now signaling support) seeing as it represents 40% of the land mass and 20% of the Population of the United States. Justices Kennedy and Thomas have even testified before Congress that the Court is simply too large.

But simply breaking up the 9th Circuit Court doesn’t go far enough.

The reason for dissolving the Court, as opposed to just breaking it up, is to free the new Courts and the subjugate States from the absurd “precedent” of the Court (to the extent that exists for Circuit Courts in our Common-Law system). The 9th Circuit has been creating laughable “precedents” like those outlined above, most of which will never be overturned by new iterations of the Court nor the Supreme Court.

If we simply break up the 9th Circuit Court, both new Courts will be bound by the “precedent” set by the old 9th Circuit. Without completely starting from scratch, the new 9th or 12th would practically still be bound to forcing Arizona to not require citizenship to vote.

To further ensure the eradication of the bad “precedent” of the 9th Circuit, it would be worthwhile to also consider rearranging large portions of the districts west of the Mississippi to incorporate States currently covered by the 9th, as this would create a legal condition where the other Courts’ precedent would be enforceable by the new Courts in the affected territory.

And beyond simply breaking the current 9th Circuit, it would be a massive political signal that Judicial Tyranny is on notice.

If enacted (or even seriously considered) this proposal would not just shake things up, it would knock the whole table over.

And on that note, beyond the 9th Circuit-centric reasons for dissolving the Court, I believe the Right needs to start forcing such ‘Constitutional Crises’ as this to halt the runaway advances of the Left.

I professionally engage in electoral battles for seats in the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government, but am increasingly of the opinion that long-term, such battles and victories will be largely meaningless unless Judicial Tyranny is checked in a serious way. We have a runaway train of Federal Unconstitutionality barreling down the tracks. Fighting over what degree to pull the brake lever of that train is no longer the best means to halt its advance… our best bet is to start throwing boulders on the tracks.

In the most analogous example, FDR used the threat of the Legislative Branch’s authority over the Courts (packing the Court) to force a Constitutional Crisis to great political effect for his political aims – though it was used in a manner damaging to the Republic and the Constitution. We on the Right must stop shying away from such acute measures. Dissolving the 9th Circuit Court for its pathetic record and playing politics is equally shocking and without precedent, but like packing the Court, is completely legitimate under the Constitution.

It’s time the Right start thinking out of the box, and start taking big swings at the ball while we still can.

The Right currently holds both Houses of the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and we ought to make good use of that power before the next election cycle. If we fail to make large-scale structural changes in as favorable a political environment as today’s, we may lose our chance forever. There is an unprecedented opportunity with President Trump and the Congress to finally start responding to years of the Left weaponization of the Courts for their political ends.

I say its high time we disarm the Left and take away their most powerful political weapon. President Trump and the Congress, dissolve the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Planned Parenthood Once Told the Truth About Abortion

Earlier this week, Obianuju Ekeocha, the Founder and President of Culture for Life Africa, uncovered a 1952 pamphlet from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America that reveals the abortion provider hasn’t always been so deceptive about the nature of abortion and the risks involved with terminating a pregnancy.

In the pamphlet, the topic of birth control is discussed in a question and answer format. After defining birth control as a “safe and simple way to plan for your children and to have them when you want them,” the question is posed: “Is [birth control] abortion?”

Their answer is astounding for those familiar with the baby-killing mill that Planned Parenthood now represents. But in 1952 they said this about abortion: “Definitely not. An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life (emphasis added).”

It is striking to compare this statement with what the organization says today about the risks of abortion procedures. Whereas in 1952 abortion was described as “dangerous to your life and health,” Planned Parenthood’s website today says, “Unless there’s a rare and serious complication that’s not treated, there’s no risk to your future pregnancies or to your overall health.”

This is despite stories in recent years where women have actually died following abortion procedures. The horrific Kermit Gosnell case in 2013 (Gosnell was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of his patient Karnamaya Mongar) is a notable example.

Although Planned Parenthood argues that abortion represents only a fraction of their services (they claim abortion comprises only 3% of their business), this claim has been repeatedly debunked. Despite claiming to be a full service women’s health organization, statistics reveal an entirely different reality. Among 650 clinics supposedly dedicated to women’s health, consider these startling figures:

Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for women’s Pap tests is 0.97%.
Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for clinical breast exams is 1.8%.
Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for mammograms is 0.0%.
Planned Parenthood’s U.S. market share for abortion is 34.9%.

Statistically, Planned Parenthood performs a minuscule percentage of the health services that American women actually need- clinical breast exams, cancer screenings, Pap tests, etc. However, they perform 35% of the nation’s abortions! In 2015 alone, they exterminated the lives of 320,000 babies (887 abortion every day). Also revealing is that for every child Planned Parenthood refers for adoption they abort 160.

In retrospect, it is fascinating to read the 1952 pamphlet Ms. Ekeocha discovered this week. It lays bare the hollowness of the organization’s claims about the gruesome reality of abortion. It also reveals the culture of death’s progress in the last few decades. What was once viewed as “dangerous” is now declared to be “safe.” And even if Planned Parenthood is right that abortion procedures are relatively “safe” for the mother, they can’t say the same for the baby.

Abortion, the intentional murdering of a human being, stands at the very core of Planned Parenthood; it’s who they are and what they do. Planned Parenthood knows this. And they also know (and have known) the truth about abortion. This is evidenced by this pamphlet. Despite the euphemisms they now employ to refer to the unborn, they know what they’re doing.

Thus, people concerned about human dignity and human flourishing should observe in the discovery of this old pamphlet the searing of an organization’s conscience; an organization that used to have the courage and honesty to at least admit what is now plainly evident to everyone else- that abortion “kills the life of a baby” and that it is “dangerous to your life and health.”