Planned Parenthood and Chris Wallace: Dishonest Political Hack

Planned Parenthood is one of the most dishonest organizations that has ever existed. But the "dishones political hack" (which I stand behind) part of the headline refers to Chris Wallace. Yes, the memory of his father might taint my judgment on this, but I don't thinks so. The specific reference is to this LIE from Wallace, which he stated this weekend on Fox promoting his Sunday show: "Plnnaed Parenthood is not just about abortion. They also do cancer screening, breast exams, etc. Democrats were pretty succeccessful at saying that Republicans were trying to hurt the health of women." Now the last part of the quoted statement (quoted as to substance, and not exact words) is true--true, however, only because of LIARS like Planned Parenthood, Democrats and Wallace. Well, that is not quite true. Republicans wre also unwilling to even fight this verbal battle, for the most part, to their eternal shame. See my next article on how Donald Trump--joke that he is--is getttin more points for standng up to the media than Repubicans (especially establishment Republicans). What is the lie? Despite the statement of the Planned Parenthood president suggesting other wise, Planned Parenthood does NOT do "cancer screening" or comprehensive "breast exams". They don't, for example, do mammagrams. This was a deliberate attempt to MISLEAD people, which is the ordinary modus operandi for Planned Parenthood. It is also, of course, misleading to say that Federal money, by law is required not to be sused for abortion. Palnned Parenthood and United Way played this game forever, and are probably still playing it. Planned Parenthood and United Way would say that you could designate NOT to give money to Planned Parenthood, but it would not change the amount that went to Planned Parenthood. They would simply say that OTHER PEOPLE'S money was used to fund Planned Parenthood. It is the same game with Federal money. Planned Parenthood can apply the Federal money to its (limited--not really directed at cancer) non-abortion services, and then al of the private donations can be appplied to abortion services. It makes no difference in thheir total funding,, as money is money. You can't "segregate" it this way, and Planned Parenthood (dishonest to its core) knows it. But am I calling Wallace a "dishonest political hack" just for falling for Planned Parenthood lies? Well, Wallace's own network (Fox) ESPOSED the lie on cancer screening by the Planned Parenthood president--the lie on "breast exams". Yes, the mainstream media was uninterested, and part of Fox at least exposed this lie. But Wallace does not seem to view his own network, or--more likely--he is a stupid political hack (leftist style). But you don't know this blog well if you think I am saying this based on ONE incident. As with Fox in general, this is based on a pattern of conduct by Wallace. Wallace e, during the 2010 campaing, asked Joe Miller: "Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President". No, I am NOT aware of Wallace asking Democrats whether Barack Obama is qualified to be President. It is the QUESTION that is despicable, and merely parroting a Democrat/mainstream media "talking point" at the time. That is what Wallace does: parrot mainstream media/Demcorat talking points. He if a leftist political hack. And no, he does NOT ask that kind of UNFAIR question (even though Miler handled it badly, when he should have ATTACKED Wallace and the question). Megyn Kelly--with whom I am LESS impressed every single day--would "press' Miller on the same subject. But Kelly is not a committed leftist (opinion subject to revision). She just has no intellectual depth. Then there was the Wallace interview with the Repubican cadidate for the Senate in California. Again, the QUESTIN LIED (yes, the Joe Millker question lied, because that kind of questiion asserts that such a question is relevant to a Senate race, when it is NOT--just being a Democrat slam against Palin). The Wallace question was about the supposed 4 TRILLION dollars that extending the Bush tax cuts allegedly "costs" the government. First Wallace (deliberately) CONFUSED the fact that the alleged 4 trillion dollars refernced the (false--see planned article) assertion that extending ALL of the Bush tax cuts would "cott" 4 trilllion dollars, when that was NOT the cost of just extending the "tax cuts for the wealthy" that Obama and the Democrats opposed. In other words, MOST of the "r trilliion" dollars was that "middle class tax cut" that Obama and the Democrats wanted to extend. This, by the way, gives the LIE to the assertion that the Bush tax cuts were mainly for the "wealthy". Wllace deliberately left the impression that the 4 trillion dollars referenced just extending the tax cuts for the weathy. Wallace is a dishonest political hack. And this was all part of the assertion that REPUBICANS (but not Democrats) should explain exactlyl how THEY were ging to come up with this (fictional) "4 trillion dollars" "added to the deficit". Fox News generally did a terrible job explaining this ISUE during the election, and asking why OBAMA was not explaining how he proposed to "finance" the more than 3 TRiLLION dollars that rerepresented the part of the extgended tax cuts going to the middle class. But Walace was the worst of them, and proved himself (along with many similar examples0 a dishonest political hack. Wait a second, you say. Fox has conservatives on their network. Why should they not have some liberals. Don't they say they are "fair and balanced". Yes, they do. And I believe they are farirly "balanced", although not "fair" to ANYBODY. That is not the point. If you want to call Hannity a "dishonest political hack", with examples, I would be hard pressed to say you are wrong. But Hannity ADMITS it. (not, of course, the dishonest part, and he is definitely more honest than Wallace). The point is not that Wallce is biased. The point is that he is DISHONEST about it, like the rest of the mainstream media, and that he blatantly LIES--using Democrat talking points. I am not saying that Fox should not put someone on the air with Wallace's kind of bias. I am saying that Fox too willingly endorses what Wallace says, as if Wallace is "objective". Further, this is not a question of who Fox should have on the air. This article simply represents a sound judgment that Wallace is a leftist, dishonest political hack (like Juan Williams, Alan Colmes and Geraldo Rivera). If Fox wants to put these people on "for balance", then that is up to Fox. Foox, however, is in danger of losing audience because it is becoming more and more like the rest of the mainstream media (using the SAME talking points as the basis for "framing the issues' that are emphasized). Planned article for this week (sometime): Taxes and the 4 Trilliion Dollar Lie (Chris Wallace, Liar). P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking. And my screen seems to still show (NOT as typed but as Google mistranslates to the final blog compy) no PARAGRAPHING. Someday, I will manage to get that fixed. My computer savvy daughter has so far failed me (unless what my screen shows is not what everyone else sees-as is definitely true of what my screen shows--paragraphing--when I push the "post" button).