Principles over Party, Integrity over Victory: A Warning for those Working Against Candidate Trump

blockedI had someone block me on twitter for the first time the other night.

When I started using twitter to voice my opinion about politics this election cycle, I did my followers a favor and created a different political handle. It’s @scottlinkpol if you want to follow. I didn’t want to subject the people interested in media to my political rants.

Sunday night I was scrolling through my feed when I saw a post that made me sit up. It said “LEAKED: Trump “off the record” Interview with New York Times” and had a link to a video. If you remember a few weeks ago there was a story that Trump had spoken to the New York Times and in that interview, off the record, had indicated that he would be more flexible on the issue of immigration than his public stance would imply. This came up in a debate, and he talked around it, but refused to let the NYT release the tapes.

I admit, as an opponent of Trump’s campaign, the thought of this off the record interview dropping 2 days before Arizona and Utah vote made me smile. It would likely have a negative impact on Trump. If Trump loses AZ, momentum swings to Cruz in the campaign. This was huge news.

A few questions came to mind. What made them release this now? They had been standing on their principles of journalistic integrity before. And why was there only one guy tweeting about this? Seemed like this would have been released to every major news outlet. So, I clicked the link. Right away, things looked off. I won’t provide the link here because I don’t want to further promote a lie. You can google the title and find it.

Red Flag 1: The video of this so called leaked audio was only :57 long. And the first half was video from the debate where Trump was asked about the NYT interview. Only the last few seconds was audio of Trump talking.

Red Flag 2: The audio of Trump sounded like a phone interview, but the NYT interview was reported as an in person interview.

Red Flag 3: The Youtube channel displaying the video had 8 videos, and less than 60 subscribers. This was not a news organization. Who would ever release a news story this big in this way. On this channel?

I mentioned this to the twitter account that had been posting the video. We, and others began talking. The audio in question highlighted the flip-flop Trump has done on immigration policy, but there was no proof this was the NYT off the record interview. Meanwhile, someone else found the ACTUAL interview the audio had been taken from. It came from a news interview from 2012. You can hear it here, time marker 1:57:

Not great for a candidate that is running in deporting illegal immigrants. But also not audio from an off the record NYT interview. The video was a fake.

So I brought this to the attention of the guy who had posted it. I don’t know him. He is just someone I followed who had been posting interesting things about the election. I won’t mention his name here, you can search my twitter feed to find him. His profile says that he once infiltrated a left wing group that was trying to “take down” a right wing radio host. That he was sort of famous for that. He has a little over 100k followers. Far more than I do on any twitter account.

I assumed he had been taken in by the false video. Turns out, he didn’t care. We had an entire conversation about whether it mattered that the video was false. My position was/is that the lie about the timing of the audio (that it was from the off the record NYT interview) far overshadows the content, which was a 4 year old opinion Trump admits he changed. I said he needed to correct his twitter feed. He was talking to 100k people. Let’s get the truth out there:

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 8.48.43 AM copy copy

He disagreed. He said this was good political strategy. It doesn’t matter when it was said (even though he had been touting the timing and “off the record” in his original post) When I defended my position, he questioned my education and told me that this was propaganda in 2016.

My response got me blocked:
IMG_6864 2main copy

I signed back in with my main twitter account and saw that he had deleted his side of our conversation and posted this ominous tweet:
FullSizeRender-2 copy
Yeah, I don’t have a lot of tweets or followers on my new political account. Maybe someone who claims to have infiltrated another political group is predisposed to suspect that of others. The bigger issue was that he had deleted our entire conversation. He was all about lying and sharing videos he knew were false. But he removed all the tweets that exposed his promotion of a lie.

Why is this important enough to share? It highlights a very real danger in this election. For some frustrating reason Donald Trump is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination to President. I would like for that to not be the case. I will use what little influence I have to help people see who he is and the dangers of electing someone like him to this office. I would like very much to win this battle.

What good is winning over Trump if we have to stoop to acting just like him in order to do it? What do I mean? Google “Trump Lies” and see what comes up. When I say that I will vote principle over party, I mean it. I will never vote for Trump. I don’t care who else is running. I won’t vote for Hillary either.

But my integrity is more important than beating Trump. I won’t knowingly share false information in hopes that it will lead to his failure. He has said enough things that have already disqualified him from holding this office. We don’t need to lie. And I won’t be a part of it to win.

How the Clintons Tell the Truth

Today Hillary Clinton will testify about the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. Her defense seems to be that “there are risks in foreign policy.

Frankly, if the administration she was a part of had not tried to cover up the facts of this event, we wouldn’t be here. To ever say that the deaths of American citizens were caused by a spontaneous riot stemming from a Youtube video, when the reality was nothing of the kind, is inexcusable. And to then flippantly ask what difference it makes when first questioned about the events? What could cause someone to do this? Americans died, and their deaths might have been prevented. Of course it matters. It still matters.

It was the investigation into this matter that uncovered the infamous email scandal that has dogged Clinton’s Presidential bid. Her story has changed many times. Every time new information comes out that contradicts her current statement, the statement changes.

The problem isn’t that she lies. It’s that she only ever tells just enough truth to get herself out of trouble. 

Of course, her husband was the same way. Look at the events that led to his impeachment. A string of allegations about sexual naughtiness plagued his career. He was never up front about those events. One could argue that his private life wasn’t my concern. And as long as no laws were broken, I could agree (to a point). But the final lie was that he never had “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinski prompted, to the embarrassment of the office of the President and the country, a little blue dress with a nasty stain to appear. The next thing we know we’re watching our President testify about his sex life, and parse words like “is”.

Talking about politics during the Clinton era I once had a professor ask me if I had ever lied. Of course I have. He told me, according to Republican doctrine, I was not qualified to be president. End of discussion.

But that isn’t the problem. Politicians lie, everyone lies. It’s not right, but we do it. It’s not that either Clinton once or twice- in a moment of weakness- lied. It’s that there is a pattern of lying, a lack of integrity and credibility that undermines the public trust, and ultimately any political office they hold.

In the matter of Benghazi and the email scandal, if Hillary Clinton had simply openly admitted whatever really happened, instead of this prolonged, ever changing denial, both of these issues would be in the past. Would either had disqualified her from being President? I have my opinions, but the public would likely have forgotten, or moved on by now. At the very least we would at least believe she was trustworthy.

But the Clintons don’t tell the truth that way. When they make mistakes, they only say as much as they are forced to.

Do we want a president that has a proven lack of integrity? Or rather, do we want another one?

Abortion Politics

Screen Shot 2015-09-29 at 9.34.20 AMIt’s sad to think that we have to talk about the issue of murdering unborn children in terms of politics, but that’s where we live in modern America.

A few days ago Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood, testified before a Congressional committee. (Pictured left) She was asked some hard questions. She answered the way you would expect. Democrats and Republicans said what you would expect. Most of the American people ignored it all, as you would expect.

Meanwhile, the media is Still, STILL freaked out by Carly Fiorina’s comments made in the last Republican debate. Even after CoalFire released a report saying that the full videos from CMP showed no signs of tampering or deceptive editing. They simply cut out bathroom and meal breaks, or travel time. But Planned Perenthood supporters, in a very classy move, threw condoms at Fiorina and the media did their best to ignore the videos while saying Fiorina was wrong or lying  about the content of the videos.

I’ve seen all 10 of the CMP episodes/videos. When Cary started describing the tapes in the debate I was surprised. Then, I realized that the tapes don’t show everything in the same scene she described. Everything she said is in the tapes, either in images, video or testimony, but there isn’t one single scene with everything she described, at one time all together. I knew immediately that she would be criticized for what she said.

Then another video was released. It reportedly shows every single thing that Fiorina described. In one video. Maybe she had seen this before, I’m not sure. Several people have written about how what Fiorina said was true, if not chronologically accurate. If Fiorina is going to make a claim, she needs to be very sure about what she says. Any deviation from what can be simply shown opens her up to massive attack from the left. It seems that the content of what she said is contained in the different videos, either through images or testimony. She wasn’t lying, but because the clip isn’t exactly as she described it, she is called a liar.

Meanwhile, back in the Congressional testimony from Richards, politicians take sides and nothing gets done. Richards did admit that Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms. She also admitted that 86% of Planned Parenthood’s non government funding comes from abortions, which only make up 3% of their services. Abortions make a lot of money for the non profit.

They talked about salaries and travel. They discussed the political action group Planned parenthood has, and how many hours Richards spent working for that group. it’s so hard to take the high road about helping these poor women when salaries are high, and perks are luxurious for employees. And if the taxpayers are paying for any of the political actions… well you can see how that would be a problem.

Several Congressmen pointed out that there are lots more women’s health clinics than PP clinics, and most receive no federal funding. And mentioned other non profits who receive much less federal funding than PP. Richards repeatedly reminded everyone that Planned parenthood doesn’t get a lump sum check, but they get reimbursed by medicare and medicaid for services provided to women. And Richards was repeatedly reminded that not every women’s clinic gets reimbursed, so why should they? One asked why the original PP response, from Richards herself, apologized for the tone and “statements” in the first CMP video, which statements did they apologize for? Richards retreated to their current defense: The CMP videos are heavily edited and deceptive.

And nothing will come of this. The political dance of the right and left on this issue is sick. This wasn’t a criminal inquiry, just an inquiry. The media will continue to ignore the real issues as much as possible. meanwhile, the culture of valueless human life keeps turning, and we keep seeing horrific headlines of murder, and our president encouraging everyone to politicize tragedies.

New Planned Parenthood Video

The 10th undercover video about Planned Parenthood’s practice of selling fetal tissue.

This one is called Human Capital: Episode 4 Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Criminal Enterprise.

What to watch for.

  • Right off the bat you see several PP staff saying they think it’s OK to sell tissue, and make a fair income.
  • 2:10- Dr. Westhoff, Senior Medical Advisor for PPFA, says they are concerned about Public Relations issues with this practice.
  • 2:25- Dr Cullins, VP for External Medical Affairs, says this sort of thing could destroy PPFA and the “buyer’s company, if the ydon’t “time these conversations correctly.”
  • 2:45-  Deb VanDerhei, Senior Director of CAPS. 1st question, what kinds of tissues are you looking for. 2nd question, let’s talk money. Notice how she asks the question. In all of these videos, there is this negotiation that happens between clinics and these companies. But if the money changing hands is simply to cover the costs of preserving and shipping the tissues, why not just say, you have to cover these costs. Why this negotiation?
  • 4:05- “The headlines would be a disaster.” Followed by obvious concern for what happens when clinics engage in getting paid for the tissue. “New York Times Headline”
  • 5:00- Dr. Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services, says there are no guidelines and there will never be guidelines for tissue procurement. Why not? If this is such a big issue, if clinics who break the law scare you, make your company afraid of big headlines, why not set down guidelines and protect everyone?
  • 6:43- VanDerhei again. She says that independent clinics generate a fair amount of income doing this. She goes on to say that they are not comfortable talking about this through email.
  • Multiple times Nuctols and VanDehei say that they don’t have policies, this could be big news stories, and generally don’t want to get involved on a national level, while also saying that it seems fair to gain income, and they do talk with their local clinics about how to handle this stuff. But they have made the choice to have no national policies.
  • Around 9:00- Vanessa Russo, Compliance Program Admin for PP Keystone, is talking to Vanderlei. It’s obvious she thinks these laws are “ridiculous”. And that people giving money for tissue is a “valid exchange.”
  • 9:55- VanDerhei talks about a hearing in Congress years ago on this subject, where the claims about changing abortion procedures for tissue sale were found to be false. Then we see Nucatola herself talking about changing abortion procedures to end up with better tissue samples for sale.

If what they are doing isn’t illegal, why not have a national policy on how to handle it? Why are they afraid of headlines?

If PPFA clinics and doctors never change their abortion procedures to aid in collecting tissue samples for “remuneration” why do some many talk about doing exactly that?

9th Planned Parenthood Undercover Video from CMP

Things to notice:

  1. Listen to Stem Express CEO talk about how they compete with non-profits, by paying the clinics to get the tissue.
  2. Perrin Larton from ABR describes abortions where the fetus is already in the vaginal canal, and drops out when the feet go in the stirrups. Se also talks about not using the poison many abortionists use to kill the baby inside the women. If the baby is practically born and falls out intact, if they don’t use poison… Just how many live births happen in these clinics?
  3. Stem express CEO accuses ABR of “hiring” staff at Planned Parenthood clinics, the ones which provide tissue to them. Oddly, I’m not sure this is illegal, though the ethics are suspect. Of course, we are parsing hairs when kids are dying.
  4. The thrust of this video seems to be the competition between the procurement businesses. if there is competition, then there is a prime climate for clinics to cash in, going with the highest bidder.

From the video description:

In an August 27 letter to Congress, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards referenced a California Planned Parenthood affiliate that currently receives $60 “per tissue specimen” from a tissue procurement organization. The Center for Medical Progress, the group producing the videos, identified Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest and ABR as the affiliate and TPO referred to in Richards’ letter, based on process of elimination.

“We now know from Cecile Richards’ letter that $60 per collected tissue specimen is what will ‘get a toe in’ to harvest baby parts at Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest,” wrote CMP Project Lead David Daleiden. As multiple tissue specimens often come from a single fetus, $60/specimen can quickly add up to hundreds of extra dollars in revenue per abortion. The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

7th Planned Parenthood Video from Center for Media Progress Released

In this video-

PP staff openly discuss how to alter the abortion procedure to get better specimens/specifies that they will charge more for. Altering procedures for this purpose is illegal.

Former procurement tech describes her worst day- seeing very developed baby, with beating heart, being asked to cut through its face to collect the brain.

And explanation that if you use a chemical to kill the baby in the womb you cannot use the specimens you collect. So when the PP people are saying they can get an intact fetus… High likelihood that baby is alive when delivered… Shown next to footage of PP staff talking about getting intact fetuses.

I know this is “old news” but come on. These are horrific acts of violence against the most innocent. Make your voice heard!