Tag Archives: PolitiFact

Did Hermain Cain lie about Planned Parenthood?

Consider Cain’s words here:

Schieffer also pushed Cain on his history of comments attacking Planned Parenthood as an organization that favors “genocide” in the black community — comments Cain said he still believes.

“I still stand by that,” Cain said. “If people go back and look at the history and look at Margaret Sanger’s own words, that’s exactly where that came from … What I’m saying is, Planned Parenthood isn’t sincere about wanting to try to counsel them not to have abortions.”

Those words are 100.00% accurate.  No lies there.  It is a fact that abortion rates in the black community are three times that of whites, and pro-legalized abortion voters and Planned Parenthood deeply desire taxpayer-funded abortions that are certain to increase that rate.  Therefore, the policies most dear to them result in the black population shrinking as a percent of the total.  Just imagine the outcry if Republicans supported policies that killed more blacks in a week than KKK has done since their inception.

But false teacher Chuck Currie says that  Herman Cain lied about Planned Parenthood Lie (and Chuck would know lying, I suppose).  But what of Cain’s claims?  PolitiFact quotes Cain here:

“When Margaret Sanger – check my history – started Planned Parenthood, the objective was to put these centers in primarily black communities so they could help kill black babies before they came into the world,” Cain said during a talk in Washington, D.C., at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group.

“It’s planned genocide,” Cain added. He wants the U.S. Congress to yank funding for Planned Parenthood, which receives about $75 million a year to provide non-abortion health services.

Technically Cain may have been wrong on the precisely worded original goals of Planned Parenthood (although it it easy to see how proud Sanger would be of how many blacks PP aborts).  But even PolitiFact notes this, though they water down Sanger’s evils:

The supposed evidence that Sanger supported black genocide is a loose collection of her most objectionable statements, her ties to the disgraced eugenics movement, and her work on what was called the Negro Project. That effort, started in 1939, brought birth control services (but not abortion) to black communities in the South.

That’s not “supposed evidence,” that’s evidence.

And speaking of lies, why don’t Chuck & Co. criticize Planned Parenthood for their serial lies in hiding statutory rape?  Or their lies about offering mammograms?  Is lying bad, or not?

Truths: The greatest killer of black human beings in the U.S. is abortion.  The abortion rates in the U.S. mean the black population is a smaller part of the whole than it would be otherwise.  Democrats support this 100%.  Margaret Sanger, PP’s founder, aggressively worked to decrease the black population.

I’m going to side with Herman Cain over a false teacher and Planned Parenthood on this one.

—–

More things to consider

Here’s one time when Planned Parenthood didn’t lie and when I agreed with them: “An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.” Sadly, that was their view in this 1964 advertisement but they changed it when they realized how profitable abortions would be and how they could fulfill Margaret Sanger’s vision.

Regarding genocide: A pro-abort on Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis‘ blog tried to insist that as a conservative and pro-lifer I was just trying to keep my majority.  I enjoyed pointing out that if I wanted to do that I would be just like her and fake Christians like Chuck: I would support Planned Parenthood, I would oppose crisis pregnancy centers and I would vote for Democrats.

Also see Group of 99% whites raises money to destroy group of 76% blacks. Anyone else find that creepy?

Things you should know about Rick Perry

The Left is in full pants-wetting mode over Rick Perry joining the race, which shows just how afraid they are of him.  He should easily trounce Mitt Romney, the preferred candidate of the Leftist mainstream media.   Faux Christians play the pathetic “separation” and “hate” cards against him in their religion-disguised-as-politics charade, all the while ignoring people like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis who are meeting directly with Obama to peddle their false gospel.

Perry isn’t perfect, of course, but my understanding is that Jesus isn’t running in 2012.  Therefore, we need to pick the least-imperfect person.   There are a lot of Republican candidates I like, but I think Perry would be a fine choice.  I hope that when the Republican candidate beats Obama that he or she puts most of the rest of the field in high level cabinet spots.

I urge you to bookmark Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, where someone actually did some real research on all the claims being thrown at Perry.  I thought it was pretty unbiased and noted where Perry has made mistakes.  But even his mistake on Gardasil was overblown, and unlike most politicians — including our President — he admitted his mistake.

He is strongly pro-life, which is a huge plus.

Here is my favorite from the list, which uses real, live facts to show how Texas education is better across the board (whites and minorities) than the national average, way better than unionized states like Wisconsin and how Perry’s opponents are

6. Texas ranks poorly in educational spending and high school graduations

That statement is true. Texas does rank near the bottom of generalized rankings in spending per student and high school graduations, but as usual, those rankings alone are misleading. The statement is intended to imply that the state does a poor job of educating its students and therefore its Governor, Rick Perry is to blame. It’s just another two-for-one Texas/Perry smear.

With Perry as governor, how does education in Texas really compare with other states?

To see how Texas stacks up, we’ll compare Texas to Wisconsin. We chose Wisconsin because earlier this year, during their sit-ins and demonstrations, Wisconsin teachers compared their state’s (supposed) #2 ranking in ACT/SAT test scores directly to Texas (at #47). Their reason for comparing to Texas was that Wisconsin teachers are unionized while teacher unions are illegal in Texas. This direct comparison was intended to show the benefit of unionized teachers in educating our children.

However, those rankings were found to be: 1) obsolete, using 12-year-old data, and 2) used questionable methodology. The ranking was debunked by PolitiFact and the claim has since been removed from the union’s website, in other words, they stretched the facts to fit their agenda.

One facet that makes a Texas comparison to many other states is the racial makeup of the student population. Minority students – regardless of state – tend to score lower than white students on standardized tests, and the higher the proportion of minority students in a state the lower its overall test scores tend to be. Regardless of the reasons, the gap does exist, and it’s mathematical sophistry to compare the combined average test scores in a state like Wisconsin (4% black, 4% Hispanic) to a state like Texas (12% black, 30% Hispanic).

But let’s ignore that mismatch and compare them anyway – broken down by racial groups. We’ll compare some 2009 standardized test scores (the latest available) for 4th and 8th grade students in the areas of math, reading, and science. A pilot program for 12thgraders is being tested, but national comparisons are not yet possible for that grade. The data supporting the following rankings are found at the Nation’s Report Card website (link below the rankings).

2009 4th Grade Math

White students: Texas 254, Wisconsin 250 (national average 248)

Black students: Texas 231, Wisconsin 217 (national 222)

Hispanic students: Texas 233, Wisconsin 228 (national 227)

2009 8th Grade Math

White students: Texas 301, Wisconsin 294 (national 294)

Black students: Texas 272, Wisconsin 254 (national 260)

Hispanic students: Texas 277, Wisconsin 268 (national 260)

2009 4th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 232, Wisconsin 227 (national 229)

Black students: Texas 213, Wisconsin 192 (national 204)

Hispanic students: Texas 210, Wisconsin 202 (national 204)

2009 8th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 273, Wisconsin 271 (national 271)

Black students: Texas 249, Wisconsin 238 (national 245)

Hispanic students: Texas 251, Wisconsin 250 (national 248)

2009 4th Grade Science

White students: Texas 168, Wisconsin 164 (national 162)

Black students: Texas 139, Wisconsin 121 (national 127)

Hispanic students: Wisconsin 138, Texas 136 (national 130)

2009 8th Grade Science

White students: Texas 167, Wisconsin 165 (national 161)

Black students: Texas 133, Wisconsin 120 (national 125)

Hispanic students: Texas 141, Wisconsin 134 (national 131)

To recap: white students in Texas perform better than white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas perform better than black students in Wisconsin, and Hispanic students in Texas perform better than Hispanic students in Wisconsin. In 18 separate ethnicity-controlled comparisons, the only one where Wisconsin students performed better than their peers in Texas was 4th grade science for Hispanic students (statistically insignificant), and this was reversed by 8th grade.

Further, Texas students exceeded the national average for their ethnic cohorts in all 18 comparisons; Wisconsinites were below the national average in 8, above average in 8. That bears repeating: Texas fourth and eighth graders outperformed the national average scores in all categories.

Perhaps the most striking thing in these numbers is the within-state gap between white and minority students. Not only did white Texas students outperform white Wisconsin students, the gap between white students and minority students in Texas was much less than the gap between white and minority students in Wisconsin.

In other words, students perform better in Texas schools than in Wisconsin schools – especially minority students.

Why you can’t trust PolitiFact

Via “What liberal media?” (Texas edition) — The math was clear: Texas could rightly make this claim:

“In the last five years, we’ve created more jobs than all other states combined.”

It was based on the right data: Net jobs added.  But instead of acknowledging what an amazing accomplishment it was, PolitiFact tried to spin it as some sort of half-truth.  Shouldn’t the energy be put into assessing what Texas has done right rather than making a lame attempt to discredit its accomplishments?  It isn’t like there aren’t tens of millions of people on food stamps and/or unemployed.

This is, in fact, objectively true, and you may verify it yourself at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data page. (We posted the graph and numbers here.) Suffice it to say that when the commercial was filmed, the latest confirmed BLS employment data was January 2011’s. Going back five years through January 2006 revealed that only ten states saw a net increase in jobs in that period — Texas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Montana. Texas’s total was 545,900 new jobs. The other nine states combined came to 183,700 new jobs. Call this what you will — we call it a resounding vindication of the Texas model of low taxes and small government — but don’t call it inaccurate.

Let’s review something for a moment. To use “created more jobs,” or any of its variants — “job creation,” “created jobs,” et al. — to signify a net increase in jobs is a de facto universal rhetorical standard. It’s so common as to be assumed, and no reasonable person reads or hears otherwise. To pick just a few examples: Here’s President Barack Obama doing it. Here’s Gallup doing it. Here’s Michael Powell of the New York Times doing it. Here’s Dennis Cauchon of USA Today doing it. Here’s Pietro Garibaldi and Paolo Mauro of the International Monetary Fund doing it. Here’s Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke doing it. Here’s Peter Cohan of Forbes doing it. Here’s Reuters and CNBC doing it. Here’s Peter Boyer of Newsweek doing it.

The idea that Brooke Rollins would mean anything but net jobs created in her quote defies credulity. News-savvy readers may recall the White House’s own rhetorical dodge on this count from late 2009, when the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors invoked the phrase “jobs saved or created” to concoct a net-positive figure on employment resulting from the federal stimulus. The widely derided lexical formulation was swiftly discarded, and with good reason: touting job creation in the absence of net job creation is rightly regarded as insulting or deceptive.

If you trust the liberal media you aren’t using good critical thinking skills.