Connect with us

Conservatism

Dr Wen was pushed out of Planned Parenthood because she’s not a wartime leader

Published

on

Dr Wen was pushed out of Planned Parenthood because shes not a wartime leader

Some leaders are meant to bring people together. Others are made to get from one point in an organization’s development to the next stage. On occasion, an organization needs to go to war, and that’s what Planned Parenthood believes it needs to do right now. Their former president, Dr. Leana Wen, believes she is a combination of the first two types of leader – bringing people together and transitioning Planned Parenthood. She believes this is why she was pushed out the door by the board.

They want to go to war and Wen is not a wartime leader.

This may sound like a bad thing for pro-life organizations as their top nemesis is clearly positioning to be more of a political organization willing to play dirty and force the issue of abortion on as many people as possible. But an astute examination of the way things are today reveals one truth: America is polarized, so it’s better to go to fight ideology versus ideology rather than attack an organization trying to build bridges.

It may have been difficult for Wen to truly coax moderate pro-lifers, liberty-minded ant-government folks, and people on the fence on the abortion issue, but she was laying the groundwork for such things. This is why I’m glad to see her go. I know the threat of a proper radical progressive who hates pro-lifers to the core is worrisome to some, including our top pro-life writer. But the writing is on the wall: war is on. Planned Parenthood is looking for a battle-hardened fighter to shame people in Alabama, scare people in Georgia, and celebrate progressives in New York. They want someone who will push the feminine healthcare aspect of Planned Parenthood to the backburner and focus solely on advancing pro-abortion laws and planting more abortion clinics around the country.

We’re not just fighting for the lives of preborn babies, though that is plenty of incentive to fight. But we’re also fighting for the soul of the nation. For the pro-life, conservative, and Judeo-Christian worldviews to regain prominence in America, it’s important that we stake our claim to unambiguous differences between our beliefs and their’s. Some will tell me we need more unity, but the only unity that’s possible in today’s polarized society is if the left gets their way and enough on the right accept it. The left will not accept our perspectives. Therefore, we must force the issue. We must get into an ideological war. Most importantly, we need to put our truths up against their best lies.

The best lies they tell are that abortion is a right, pre-born babies aren’t people, and killing the “lump of cells” in the mother is somehow considered healthcare.

In an article posted today by the NY Times, Wen explains why she was ousted and gives hints about the direction Planned Parenthood wants to go without her:

With high-quality, affordable health care out of reach for so many, Planned Parenthood has a duty to maximize its reach. I began efforts to increase care for women before, during and after pregnancies, and to enhance critically-needed services like mental health and addiction treatment.

But the team that I brought in, experts in public health and health policy, faced daily internal opposition from those who saw my goalsas mission creep. There was even more criticism as we worked to change the perception that Planned Parenthood was just a progressive political entity to show that it was first and foremost a mainstream health care organization.

Perhaps the greatest area of tension was over our work to be inclusive of those with nuanced views about abortion. I reached out to people who wrestle with abortion’s moral complexities, but who will speak out against government interference in personal medical decisions. I engaged those who identify as being pro-life, but who support safe, legal abortion access because they don’t want women to die from back-alley abortions. I even worked with people who oppose abortion but support Planned Parenthood because of the preventive services we provide — we share the desire to reduce the need for abortion through sex education and birth control.

The Planned Parenthood of the near future is one that doesn’t worry about reproductive health or the safety of babies. They simply want more abortions. There’s an evil at the heart of the organization that is actually darker than we’ve seen in the past, if that can be imagined. We need to fight this darkness, and Wen was in the way trying to make Planned Parenthood inclusive and acceptable. That went against their new goal. They want the issue forced.

Our truths are able to shine brightest when the opposition is at its darkest. A kindler, gentler, inclusive agenda isn’t as dark as Planned Parenthood’s desired goal of advancing as many abortions as possible. I’m glad to see Wen removed.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

Why isn’t gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist?

Published

on

By

Why isnt gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist

Liberty [Gun] Control is rooted in racism. It also adversely affects women. Why isn’t it considered to be racist and sexist?

A recent video from One America News Network entitled: ‘Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights’ made this very important point on the topic of Liberty Control. The basic facts of science have one sex at a disadvantage to the other, with guns being the great equalizer.

Why doesn’t the Left have to answer for the sexism and racism of Liberty control?

These days, the national socialist Left wields pejoratives Racism and Sexism like an assault weapon. So why aren’t these labels applied to them for their incessant attacks against freedom? Firearms are the great equalizers, with the Left’s gun confiscation agenda having a disproportionate effect on women and minorities.  Somehow the Left escapes these facts being applied to them, while they exploit those words with abandon.

We’ve already detailed the racism aspect of this issue here, and case for Liberty control being sexist made in this video.

Why the gun is civilization..

We will wrap this up with a column written in 2007 by Marko Kloos on a WordPress blogging site the Munchkin wrangler. It encapsulates the issue of firearms down to one proposition on how human being deal with each other.

MARCH 23, 2007 by MARKO KLOOS
Why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[Emphasis added]

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

The 2nd Amendment is the first target in the left’s war on liberty

Published

on

By

The 2nd Amendment is the first target in the Lefts war on Liberty

The commonsense civil right of armed self-defense is the canary in a coal mine for the cause of liberty.

It was a little over a month ago that John Lovell from the Warrior Poet Society produced this video, but it seems longer given recent events. He expresses the thoughts of many that are becoming increasingly prescient by the day. We are witness to the fact that while those on the national socialist left like to profess support of liberty as being ‘liberal’ they are becoming ever more strident towards the concept.

While the common sense human right of self-defense is literally the tip of the spear in the defense of liberty. The people on the left who only pretend to be liberal are now branching out from this basic human right, going after other civil liberties with a vengeance. Topping their list is a concept that eviscerates several civil liberties with on fell swoop, Gun Confiscation SWATing [aka so-called ‘Red flag’ laws ]. So far they’ve done little to solve the problem and according to an article from colleague Blaine Traber: Baltimore’s homicides by firearm RISE 13% since red flag gun law went into effect. Thus, these abominations of Constitutional Liberties are not only useless for their intended purpose, they are making the situation even worse.

Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris belched forth an even more egregious example in which she expanded her ire for self-preservation to what George Orwell characterized as ‘Wrongthink’. As reported in Bearing Arms, Senator Harris proposed opening up the criteria for gun confiscation to the realm of improper viewpointsThis case illustrates that the 2nd amendment is just the first target in the Left’s war on Liberty, but it certainly won’t be the last.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Twitter is against conservatives. Here’s how conservatives must fight back.

Published

on

Twitter is against conservatives Heres how conservatives must fight back

There’s an easy answer to the question of how to hold Twitter accountable for its anti-conservative policies that often purge, silence, or censor its users who are committing their version of thoughtcrimes. Just delete your account. Unfortunately, this answer is insufficient when we consider the tremendous clout Twitter holds over the media and much of the population. It’s where many Americans get their news (and #FakeNews). It’s also a cesspool of rhetoric, and while I’m personally opposed to wading into cesspools of any sort, I recognize Twitter is still an important tool in the fight against socialism.

So, we’re stuck with it.

But that doesn’t mean we have to sit back and let the “algorithm” virtually silence us. Today, I participated in a “bootcamp” for conservatives, many of whom are new to Twitter, on how to be better virtual patriots. It was a refreshing experience; it had been too long since I engaged in teaching outside of my writing on NOQ Report. But one question sort of stumped me. It’s not that I didn’t have the answers, but Twitter is a platform of brevity and the answer to the question wasn’t possible to communicate briefly.

In short, the question was how can conservatives overcome the roadblocks that Twitter imposes on us? Here are the answers:

Know your goal

It’s surprising how many people join Twitter with the goal of showing support for President Trump. I ask them who they’re “showing” their support to. They usually reply with “everyone” or “my followers,” at which point I inform them that they’re probably not reaching as many people as they think, if any at all.

Reach is everything on Twitter. It’s like a tree falling in an empty forest. If a Tweet is sent out, and nobody reads it, was it really a Tweet at all?

But there are other worthy goals for patriots. “Trolling” is often frowned upon, but it’s actually a very powerful tool if used properly on Twitter. By trolling, I’m not a fan of personal attacks on anyone. But trolling policies and politicians in the face of their claims is often enough to get supporters or potential supporters to ask questions or research it for themselves. Let me go troll someone real quick and I’ll post an example…

…stand by…

…okay… done…

You don’t have to have a single goal. You can focus on multiple things depending on how much time you put into Twitter. But you must have at least one. If you’re here to support the President, decide how you want to show your support and work towards achieving that goal. Without knowing what you want to accomplish, you’ll likely accomplish nothing.

Follow those who like your stuff

When someone follows me, there’s a chance I’ll look at their Tweets and follow them back. But if someone likes or retweets me and they’re conservatives, I’ll almost certainly follow them even if they’re not following me. Interaction with content I post is far more important than following.

This isn’t an egotistical decision. It’s based on the algorithm. I’m sure you’ve noticed just because you’re following someone doesn’t mean you’ll see their Tweets in your feed. But if you like a post, retweet it, comment on it, or a combination of the three, there’s a good chance you’ll see what they Tweet and retweet in the future.

I follow those who interact with my posts because if they follow me as well, they’ve already engaged with my content. As a result, they are already more likely to see my posts in their feed. With reach being the goal, following people who have interacted with your posts and getting them to follow you back makes the most sense.

Replies are often more powerful than standalone Tweets

When we post a standalone Tweet, it has an opportunity to be seen by our followers and the followers of those who retweet us. When we reply to someone else, it has an opportunity to be seen by the same people as a standalone Tweet PLUS those who follow the person we’re responding to. Though fewer of our followers will see a reply than a standalone, there’s a chance to reach a different audience.

As noted above, I often troll those whose views I oppose. But sometimes I’ll reply to people I agree with wholeheartedly. There’s no rule about who you reply to, though I strongly recommend being cordial. The left gets unhinged. It’s incumbent on patriots to keep our cool, take the high road, and express our indignation intelligently. Just as we laugh at unhinged progressives, so too do they laugh at unhinged conservatives. But when we’re cordial and thoughtful, their only complaints can be about substance.

Guess who wins the substance debate? Conservatives. Why? Because we have the truth on our side.

One way to “double dip” is to retweet your reply. They don’t appear in your primary timeline otherwise and by retweeting it, you give it even more opportunity to be seen by your followers.

Don’t Tweet in batches unless it’s a thread

Don’t spread your Tweets thin. Tweeting one right after another reduces the chances of your Tweets being seen because Twitter usually only serves a few of your Tweets and retweets to followers at any given moment. Thankfully, The Twitter feed moves quickly, so it doesn’t take a long “cooldown” between Tweets. 5-10 minutes is fine.

The exception to this rule is with threads. There’s no time limit. I’ve seen threads that are a dozen Tweets long posted in a matter of seconds. I’ve seen threads extend for days at a time. With a thread, you have the opportunity for multiple Tweets to be seen as people click the “Show This Thread” button.

If I retweet a lot, I’ll often wait the 5-10 minutes before posting a fresh Tweet. This isn’t necessarily a rule of mine. Just habit, I suppose.

Keep in mind, some are able to take advantage of massive followings and Tweet constantly. This is only recommended if you’re regularly getting hundreds or thousands of retweets already.

Assume bias and proceed accordingly

Arguably the most important advice I can give any patriot wanting to make an impact through Twitter is to not take it too seriously. I know many people who put so much effort into Twitter that they have little time for other acts of patriotism. Twitter is important, but it’s not important enough to take away attention from other things.

I’ve been there. Before a strange algorithmic banning and a pair of long hiatuses from the platform, I would regularly get hundreds of retweets, sometimes thousands. I wasn’t nearly as popular as many of the strong conservative accounts today, but I had my share of semi-viral posts. But Twitter took that away. I helped by not paying enough attention, allowing my account to go stagnant. I’m embarrassed that some of my posts get literally zero interaction, but I don’t worry too much.

After all, it’s just Twitter.

We know the powers that be in big tech are determined to push the 2020 elections to the Democrats. We can give up or we can fight through it. I, for one, am choosing to push forward. There’s nothing worse than a quitter.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending