The GOP on Rape, Abortion, and the American Taxpayer

           Well Folks, this is about as bad as it gets. Just about everything mentioned in this piece of propaganda is factually false, but in a feeble attempt to keep my composure, I'll try to explain every element of this poster piece-by-piece so that we can better understand the reality of this issue.

         What this poster is basically trying to say to the sheeple masses is this: "If you vote for the Republican Party, bad BAD things will happen... especially if you're a raped woman who's pregnant!" It uses poor imagery, scare tactics, and completely falsified statements to support this message. Notice how they drew fangs protruding from Paul Ryan's mouth. Really? As if suggesting the presence of a mythical monster isn't evident enough of Liberal fantasies; the artists (if you could call them that) of this meme somehow believed the white triangles plastered on Ryan's upper lip would somehow invoke a sense of terror or animosity from its Liberal viewers. Talk about paternalization. If the GOP really wanted to take part in this kind of propaganda, they would have only needed to display an honest, non-photoshopped image of Nancy Pelosi; white triangles not included. Or maybe I'm completely wrong in my line of thinking. Perhaps it's just a big joke that's supposed to be funny somehow; only no one is laughing. Not even Liberals. Either way, if the Liberals really represented a noble cause, they wouldn't feel the need to post this kind of crap all over the place. So, let's get to work on breaking this down, shall we?

          First we see three photographs of Paul Ryan and Todd Akin. The whole idea behind this poster is a result of comments made by Todd Akin, who is currently under intense scrutiny by both the Conservative and Liberal masses. The comments Akin made were regarding cases of rape and abortion services for rape victims. The primary elements to Akin's comments boil down to 3 simple statements: 1) It is rare for pregnancy to occur as a result of rape. 2) Women have some sort of biological mechanism to prevent pregnancy after a "legitimate rape" occurs and 3) The focus of punishment should be placed on the rapist and not on the child conceived through the rapist's actions. We really can't argue the fact that Todd Akin communicated his stance in a way that is just... atrocious; resulting in a political blight on the Republican Party...as expected. But anyway, let's take a closer look at these comments...

Akin Comment #1 - It is rare for pregnancy to occur as a result of rape. In an effort to be as politically fair as I can, I'll use a source that is usually not in favor of Conservatives; The New York Times. The NY Times published a story about this matter and even went on to find data to support this claim made by Akin. What The NY Times found (per findings of The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology) was that approximately 5% of reported rapes result in pregnancy. Here's another statement using the same data: Approximately 95% of all reported rapes do not result in pregnancy. I'd say that pregnancy as a result of rape is a pretty rare occurrence, assuming one were to take this information into consideration. If someone contracted a deadly illness and the doctor told them they had a 5% chance of survival, I'd say their chances aren't too promising. What Akin said here was indeed, true and he deserves no criticism for it. With that said...moving on.

Akin Comment #2 - Women have some sort of biological mechanism to prevent pregnancy after a "legitimate rape." I never thought it was possible for a simple remark to send my Cheerios through my sinus passages and out my nostrils, but it did indeed happen upon hearing Akin make this remark. It was this statement that forced the previous comment out of everyone's consciousness as people frantically started to check their own vital signs (including me). To say that women can biologically shut their reproductive organs down, at will, is about the most ludicrous statement anyone has ever heard and that applies to both Conservatives and Liberals. It is this remark that, I believe, is most responsible for the smear attacks against Akin and the Republican Party's "war on women." Yes, that's what Liberals are saying about the GOP now, in case anyone is actually surprised. The other half of this comment: "legitimate rape." There are all kinds of debates surrounding the use of these words and most of it is angry mumbo-jumbo from both sides of the political spectrum. There is no official definition for "legitimate rape," but there is a legal definition for the term "forcible rape," which is probably what Akin meant to say during his interview. There's no way of knowing that for sure, however. I'll touch more upon the definition of forcible rape later.

Akin Comment #3 - The focus of punishment should be placed on the rapist and not on the child conceived through the rapist's actions. I think most people missed this part of the interview as they were still reeling, heaving, and defibrillating from the previous comment, but I happen to agree with Akin here. My agreement is purely out of subjectivity, however. What I take from this message is that Akin feels an unborn child should not be aborted on the basis of being a product of rape. It is perfectly okay for one to feel this way. It's his opinion; his personal belief. There's nothing wrong with having either. On the other hand, it does seem unconstitutional to force anyone in either direction based solely off one's personal beliefs. Despite the political firestorm that has engulfed everything that is Todd Akin, he later did apologize for his remarks. To me, that demonstrates a strong sense of humility and character. The American people should willingly accept his apology and move on.

          It's no surprise other major GOP figures would somehow make their way into this debate, even though it was Todd Akin (and Todd Akin alone) who made these highly controversial comments. The only way Paul Ryan is somehow involved in this matter revolves around H.R. 3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act; a bill in which Paul Ryan and Todd Akin are co-sponsors (along with 11 House Democrat Representatives, if I may add). The bill passed through the House in May, 2011. 235 House Republican Reps and 16 Democrat Reps voted in favor of this bill and 175 Democrat Reps did not. The Liberals decided it was better to invest their time spatting on about the GOP's "war on women" and constructing mindless, political memes like the one shown above. Perhaps they could have invested just a few minutes into actually reading the contents of the bill. It's only 14 pages, after all. So, in an effort to arm myself with knowledge, I decided to read the bill and see exactly what it has to say. The bill basically states in Sections 301 - 304 that if a woman wants to have an abortion, it should not be the responsibility of the taxpayers to pay for it. No surprises there. The title of the bill alone could have told anyone that. Section 309 is where things started to get interesting, however. Section 309, parts (1) and (2) of the bill states the following:

 ‘SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

‘The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion--

(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of  forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. 

          So, there you have it. Abortion operations, as a result of pregnancy incurred from forcible rape, incest, or life-endangering physical conditions as a direct result of pregnancy, WILL be provided and paid for at taxpayer's expense for any woman under said circumstances. Allow me to add there is absolutely nothing in this bill that is, in any way, making abortions illegal. It's simply stating that abortions will not be paid for by the U.S. Government UNLESS the pregnancy falls under one of the two categories listed above. I'd say that's about as much of a compromise between the two parties as one could get. Now, let's talk more about the big buzzword here: forcible rape. Upon reading the legal definition, it seems pretty clear as it covers just about every rape-related circumstances one could think of. Here's a list of all the different rape circumstances that I am aware of.

• Date Rape - No lawful consent; definition applies. 
• Date Rape with Roofies? - You can't consent to sex if you're not conscious; definition applies. 
• Gang Rape - No lawful consent; definition applies.
• Marital Rape - Still no lawful consent; definition applies.
• Incest Rape - Still no lawful consent; definition applies. 
• Child Sexual Abuse - Below age of consent = Child cannot legally consent to sex; definition applies.
• Prison Rape - It certainly is possible for a female CO to be raped by an inmate(s); definition applies.
• Acquaintance Rape - No lawful consent; definition applies. 
• War Rape - It certainly is possible for female military personnel to get captured and raped by enemy combatants; definition applies.
• Statutory Rape - Below age of consent = Minor cannot legally consent to sex; definition applies.

       I can't think of any others right now, but I'll add more if, and when I do. The only fuzzy part about this bill is it didn't mention whether or not a police report and medical examination is required if one claims pregnancy as a result of rape. It would be awfully easy to get abortions courtesy of the tax payers if one did not have to provide any evidence that a rape actually took place. Perhaps this is what Akin meant by "legitimate rape" after all.

So let's go back to this poster again and see exactly what truths we determined (Snopes style!) with the given information.

• 2011 - Paul Ryan and Todd Akin co-sponsored an "anti-abortion" bill that included the term "forcible rape." - False.
• For accuracy, here's how this message should be worded: "Paul Ryan and Todd Akin co-sponsored an abortion-related bill that included the term "forcible rape." It's not anti-abortion, it's anti-tax-payers-being-required-to-pay-for-abortions; minus a few exceptions. There's a considerable difference.
• Today, Akin used the term "legitimate rape." - True.
• Akin did use the term "legitimate rape" during his interview regarding rape and abortion. So what? 
• Ryan opposes abortion even in cases of rape. - False.
• Sec. 309 Parts (1) & (2) of H.R. 3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act clearly states otherwise.
• Romney knowingly chose a running-mate who would use the government to enforce laws that would force a woman to give birth to a rapist's child against her will. - False.
• H.R. 3 does not, in any way, make abortion illegal, it simply states the tax payers should not be required to cover abortion costs under normal circumstances.
• Fact: Ryan opposes abortion in cases of rape. - False and a flat-out LIE.
• Just because a statement starts with the word "FACT" in all caps does not mean it is one. Sec. 309 Parts (1) & (2) of H.R. 3 - No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act clearly falsifies this statement. Do I really need to repeat that again?

In conclusion...Liberal idiocy.

Thank you for reading...and God Bless

- JSR

Why Does it Seem Like America Is Not Getting Better?

          I found this wonderful little poster plastered all over countless profile pages on a social media powerhouse we like to call "Facebook." Facebook is the online propaganda generator of the century! Even though I often don't agree with the same beliefs adopted by the General Left, my all-too curious mind just makes it impossible for me to resist reading what it has to say...and it says a lot, indeed.

          Upon reading this poster, I suffered a panic attack for about a fourth of a second thinking that perhaps I may have been on the wrong side of the political spectrum; which was clearly one of the poster's intentions. Initially, I had to ask myself why the Republicans would ever oppose the creation of jobs, take care of 9/11 responders, or care about equal pay for women? I continued on to read some of the comments where I discovered the Facebook Libs were just eating this poster up; qualifying these "facts" to satisfy their own convictions that Republicans are "enemies of the U.S." Yes, that's what some of the Liberal commentators posted in response to this eloquent piece of literature (sarcasm). The one thing I do like about this poster is it proves Liberals acknowledge the fact that America really isn't better off today than it was four years ago. Accepting responsibility for failure is not something they seem to do well, however, and I'd wager not one of these Facebook Libs took the time to read up on any of the bills that are listed. I, on the other hand, decided it's best to look further into these claims, so I read each and every one of those bills. After only a few minutes, I come to find the claims of this poster came as no surprise. Even though most of the material listed above is indeed true, it fails to include the full story, which goes without saying. I'll explain what I mean in full detail below...

H.R. 847 - James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009. This bill was actually passed by the Senate in Dec, 2010. Although the bill may have been filibustered before, it still made its way through. Pres Obama just needs to sign it into law, which according to my resources, hasn't happened yet. This bill should not be a complaint from Democrats any longer. 31 House Republican Reps did support and vote in favor of it, after all.

S. 3816 – Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. Bill overview: Includes small tax benefits for companies who move jobs back to the U.S., but imposes tax penalties for business that don't. Personal opinion: No business-minded person in the world would agree to a bill like this. And according to the Republicans, Democrats aren't known for having a strong business mind-set (with the exception of Clinton, perhaps). It’s no surprise why all the Repubs shot it down along with 4 Democratic Senators (the only surprising part about the life of this bill). It's hard for U.S. workers to compete with offshore workers because the corporate tax rate is so much lower in other countries (like China) and the workers only get paid pennies on the dollar compared to U.S. workers. The only thing that I believe will fix that problem is if the U.S. corporate tax is lowered and if workers in other countries start demanding higher wages and benefits, which they currently are. Lowering the corporate tax is not a new idea considering the U.S. currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. I've heard Liberals claim the U.S. actually does not have the highest corporate tax and they all seem to mention Germany being among the highest. I looked into this claim only to find it is, in fact, false. Yes, offshoring is a problem that needs fixed. So, make the U.S. more competitive for businesses to operate locally and the problem should fix itself with time. A bill like this is blatantly proposing a raw deal to business owners across the country. It would never fly under a Republican Senate majority. "Nay!"

S. 1723 – Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011. Bill Overview: Proposes lots of government spending to retain public sector jobs in a broke economy. My opinion: No one, from either political party, can argue that public sector jobs are paid for by taxation of the private sector and the private sector is already suffering immensely in today's economy. A strong economy in the private sector is paramount if public sector jobs want to keep receiving their pay and benefits, which are currently better than most jobs in the private sector. The New York Times, a predominantly Liberal news source, even agrees with this claim. This is especially true with Police and Firefighters working within predominantly Democratic states, like California. Currently there is more money being spent to support public workers than what the taxpayers can afford, and this bill proposes we should burden the tax payers even more. The Democratic leaders need to focus only on jobs in the private sector, but they seem to be avoiding it like the plague. Why is that? It’s the private sector that pays most of their salaries, after all. I'm not surprised why Republicans voted against this bill. I wouldn't have voted in favor of it, either. "Nay!"

Sidenote: In Jan, 2012 President Obama vetoed the Alberta Keystone Pipeline proposal, which would have created around 20k jobs here in the U.S. and not paid for through taxation. We're talking raw revenue paid to the U.S. from Canada; an opportunity for the U.S. to make some real money. Not borrowed money. Not taxed money... Real money! Talk about a "stimulus." If job creation really was a priority of Obama's, then why would he veto this proposal? Even a sizeable chunk of Democratic Senators and House Representatives supported the pipeline, rapidly accelerating the bill through the legislation process only to be crushed under Obama's green thumb. I'll tell you why this happened. 1) Oil productions in the Bakken fields of North Dakota are ramping up considerably; making the pipeline proposal a fast and cost-efficient method of transportation between the oil and its refineries. Without the pipeline, shipping of oil must now rely on locomotive transportation (railroads). Coincidentally, Warren Buffett (Democratic Party contributor and billionaire) purchased a portion of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp in November, 2009 (the company that operates the BNSF railroad) on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Currently, this railroad is the primary method of transportaion of Keystone XL's oil between the Gulf Coast and Canadian refineries. So, what does this have to do with Obama's veto of the Keystone Pipeline? It's simple. The pipeline would have nullified the need for railroad transportation of oil, which would have cost our poor, Liberal, billionaire Buffet about 20% of Bakken's business and about 950k barrels a day of Keystone XL's (pipeline) business. Obama couldn't afford to support a bill that would damage business endeavors of one, very rich Liberal, even if it's at the expense of thousands of Americans, both Democrat and Republican. The veto of the Keystone Pipeline is the very essence of corruption, but wait! ...the motives don't stop there. 2) Obama and his environmentalist supporters decided that "oil emissions" were a bigger threat to the country than the unemployment rate and the country's stagnant economy; not to mention the pipeline would have only run through predominantly Republican States. Go figure. President Obama tried to justify his veto as a means to "protect the American people." A statement that puckered the sphincters of Liberals across the country. The Liberal media now portrays Obama as a big American hero because of it. Enviromentalists; they'll sit back and worry so much about people breathing "dangerous" fumes all while choking on their own bong emissions. Perhaps if these environmentalists spent a few less hours baking their minds into oblivion, they would have come to discover that pipeline transportation of oil would have been the least environmentally detrimental alternative to oil transportation.

S. 1769 - Rebuild America Jobs Act. While many of the contents of this bill are certainly desirable, it still calls for A LOT of Gov spending, which is not the direction Republicans want to go right now; not with a national debt teetering at the brink of 16 trillion dollars. Despite the vast amount of money needed for this bill, it still would not be enough to fund all the things it wanted to do. For instance, part of the bill wanted to allocate 50 million dollars in job training for up to 3 million jobs. If my math is correct, that equals $16.67 per job. Even McDonalds spends more than that to train a burger flipper. That 50 million would have been wasted money. And that’s just one example. Also, most of these jobs are contract/infrastructure jobs that are not permanent. What happens to all these workers when the jobs are finished? Don’t get me wrong; the concept of the bill is decent, it just needs serious revision and more focus on the private sector. Perhaps under better economic circumstances and less national debt, the concept of this bill would gain more support than it got. For now... "Nay!"

S. 2230 – Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012. Proposes to raise taxes on any household income of $1 million or more. Ok, let’s examine what “household income” means. It means if two peoples’ combined salaries equal more than $1 million, they get taxed more. This means 2 married individuals making at least $500k a year, unless a spouse files their tax returns separately. If either household partner owns a small business that is not a corporation, it is not unusual to gross out at more than a million dollars per year. Let's also take a moment to realize that with owning a small business, there is a considerable difference between one's gross income and one's net income. Does a bill such as this mean small business owners would get taxed even more? Yes, it does. While small business owners may make a lot on paper, they also incur a lot of costs to doing business.  Let’s also realize that small business owners are the primary job creators in this country. Taxing them more is detrimental to job creation, especially if it’s taxing 30% gross income, as the bill proposes. Small Businesses would suffer immensely, more layoffs would occur as a result and unemployment would continue to rise. If the Dems want to tax the rich, then tax the rich. $1 million/yr in today’s world is hardly what I would call “rich.” "Nay!"

S. 3220 – Paycheck Fairness Act. I and every other conservative I spoke with wholeheartedly agree that women should make just as much as men while working the same job; plain and simple. The way this bill wanted to address this problem, however, is just...irrational. It basically proposes setting up a whole new bureaucracy intended to oversee workplaces across the board to ensure women are getting paid fairly. Sanctions for non-compliance would be put in place, too...as expected. The bill also proposes a government program to train girls and women on how to negotiate higher salaries with new employers. New bureaucracies = additional regulations, the government borrowing more money and more tax dollars being spent. Even with all these new regulations, it wouldn't stop businesses from not hiring women if such a bill were passed. My conclusion, everything about this bill is an incentive for businesses to NOT employ women. Why would anyone hire one if doing so would only bring about more bureaucracy; big brother making sure you're in compliance with yet another cluster of government regulation. As if business' compliance departments aren't already pulling their hair out. Not to mention the additional hours sole proprieters have to spend every day on compliance alone. It's another strain that businesses will attempt to avoid in any way possible, even if it means trying to hire less women. Another thing to keep in mind is that variability in pay between workers (males AND females) of the same job is not unusual. This is because there are a lot of gender-neutral variables that play a part in determining how much one should make. Previous work experience in the same field and educational credentials are relevant factors for determining how much a worker's beginning salary should be in comparison with his/her colleagues. All are contributing factors to why people working the same job may see variances in pay. I don't think this bill would help women. It would maginalize them even more. "Nay!"

          So there you have it. I read all the bills and these were the conclusions I drew from them. Before any Liberal goes on saying that Repubs hate everyone and are trying to disrupt everything the Dems are working toward, read the bills they propose and decide for yourself if their methodologies really are in America’s best interests. We all have the right to make our own decisions, after all.

The information presented is complements of OpenCongress.org.

If you made it this far...thank you for reading. God Bless!

- JSR

Prop Cops Mission Statement

Propaganda, according to Dictionary.com, is "Information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." With that said, I'd like to start this off by explaining what it is I intend to accomplish here with this blog. I'll begin with just a few of my beliefs surrounding the subject of propaganda and how it will relate to all future content.

• Propaganda is exactly what dictionary.com says; it isn't helping anyone, or anything. I truly believe that propaganda is hurting this country (as it has hurt many others) in a way that is unprecedented in American History. The citizens of the United States deserve better than to have their "facts" thrown at them in the form of half-truths, sensationalism, demonization, and many other detrimental forms of partisan imagery.
• Propaganda doesn't "educate" nor is it, in any way, conducive to productive problem solving. All propaganda is good for is this: It enrages the people of all political parties, polarizes the people of the United States, divides the nation, and threatens national morale.
• Propaganda may indeed list facts, but is always partisan and never tells the whole story.
• Propaganda is not something that can be stopped, nor should it be. After all, the use of propaganda is an exercise of one's First Amendment rights, which is something that should never be compromised. The only thing I can hope to achieve is to exercise my own First Amendment rights in an attempt to reverse the damage caused by propaganda.

With every post, I will submit a piece of propaganda; one that is flashing in the faces of Americans everywhere. I will explain what the message of such propaganda is trying to communicate and why it is detrimental to its readers. I will then pick apart the message by conducting my own research in an attempt to illustrate the "whole story" behind it. Keep in mind that while facts themselves may be objective, interpretation of such facts are always subjective. Conclusions drawn will always appear partisan as a result. Thank you for reading.

- JSR