My good friend James Sullivan at The Rule links to a WND story by John Lofton that’s pretty shocking - saying that President Bush’s administration has given $2.2 Billion dollars (that’s NINE zeros) to Planned Parenthood:
So, where do I get the $2.2 billion figure? I get it from Jim Sedlak of the American Life League, an expert on Planned Parenthood and its federal funding. In an interview, Jim tells me yes, the Bush administration has indeed “extensively” funded Planned Parenthood, the total amount of federal funding (through 2006, the most recent figures known) being at least $2.2 billion. In Bush’s first year (2001), he approved $202 million for PP; in the last year for which there is reporting (2006), Bush gave PP $337 million – a single year funding increase of 67 percent. Sedlak notes that in 2006, PP showed a $114 million profit so did not need federal funding.
And “yes, certainly,” Jim says, every federal tax dollar given PP frees up one of its other dollars to pay for abortions. He adds: “And there are dollars that go into Planned Parenthood, especially state dollars, that pay for abortions. There are Medicaid programs, for example, that actually pay for abortions in some of the states. So some of this [federal] money goes directly to abortions.”
Jim says he has “no good answer” as to why Bush, supposedly pro-life, supposedly a “compassionate conservative,” would OK giving $2.2 billion in federal tax dollars to a group as evil as PP. He adds that he and others were hopeful that when Bush was elected he would cut off all Title 10 money to PP, “but he never has.”
When asked if over the years his group and other pro-life people have asked Bush or his people to cut off all PP federal funding, Jim says: “Yes, we made it absolutely clear that it is outrageous that Planned Parenthood continues to get all of this money.” So, what did Bush and his people say? “They gave no legitimate excuse for not cutting off the money. They told us this is difficult to do, they were working on it, they had to deal with Congress, etc. There was no substantive answer.”
Jim says that under President Bush, “Planned Parenthood has gotten more and more [federal] money every year – a slightly greater increase than under President Clinton.”
If this is true, it’s a bombshell, even if the program is funded through side channels. Steve Ertelt of Lifenews.com left a pretty huffy comment in James’ comment box about the article:
Not mentioned is the fact that this isn’t directly from Bush but from part of the Congressional budget. Pro-life advocates have tried for years to cut this family planning money to Planned Parenthood and we have lost the votes. Most recently we lost a 52-41 vote in the Senate to cut this funding (see http://www.lifenews.com/nat3385.html).
If we could cut the funding, Bush would gladly sign the non-gifting Planned Parenthood budget, so it’s totally disingenuous to say Bush wants this money and directly gave it to Planned Parenthood.
What is keeping us from having the votes to defeat this PP funding? We don’t have enough pro-life members of the House and Senate. Who opposes these pro-life candidates? Oh yes, John Lofton, a third party advocate, who says any pro-life Republican or Democrat really isn’t pro-life.
If Lofton is serious about cutting this $2.2 million in Planned Parenthood funding, he would launch a vigorous campaign to up our pro-life numbers in Congress. He’s done no such thing to my knowledge and frequently attacks the strategy of pro-life groups like Focus on the Family and National Right to Life that do and that have led the fight to cut this funding (http://www.lifenews.com/nat3405.html).
So Lofton does nothing to remedy the situation that enables the PP funding. Talk about hypocrisy.
The truth of the matter is that Bush has repeatedly cut off abortion funding. He installed the Mexico City Policy to prohibit funding of abortions abroad, he has signed bills with numerous abrotion funding bans domestically, and repeatedly cut off funding to UNFPA (and expanded the Reagan year limits in addition) because it is involved in China’s forced abortion programs. To say Bush is not against abortion funding is simply not factual.
So which is true? The WND article is more compelling, if for no other reason than that it offers substantiation, and a pretty damning interview. Even if Ertelt is correct and the blame lies with Congress, where is the Bush Administration’s fight to bring this to the public’s attention so it can be remedied? If it were me sitting in the White House and I knew this money was going, unchecked, to America’s largest abortion provider, you bet your bottom dollar I’d be making a racket and doing all in my power to get it stopped.
But then again - I’m pro-life - I don’t just campaign on it.
And that brings us again to the distinction that we so often fail to make. Politicians who claim to be pro-life believe in a platform that secures a voting base. They rarely seem to possess the personal conviction and sense of urgency that those of us who actually believe that abortion is murder do. Maybe it’s why we’re so disappointed every time we elect one of these schmucks only to have them phone it in on January 22nd and maybe appoint a judge or two when it’s their turn, or sign off on a parental notification law.
Where’s the fight? Where’s the passion? Where’s the guy who is willing to leverage every ounce of his political muscle as President (or Congressman, or Senator) to make abortion an unavoidable issue?
Nowhere, far as I can tell. Stories like this only back that up.
Steve, Steve is right. Congress writes the laws. Heck, if I was president, I’d issue a veto threat on any budget with PP funding in it, and I’d pull a Clinton/Gingrich and engineer a shutdown too.
That being said, unfortunately, we’d not only need pro-life candidates to shut off Planned Parenthood, we’d need anti-contraception candidates too. That’s the part of the business they’re funding; a lot of Republicans still don’t realize that contraception increases the abortion rate.
Fun Virginia politics fact of the day; thanks to Ken Cuccinelli (who won by less than 100 votes), the state legislature shut off all state funding to Planned Parenthood this year. Go them.
So which is true? The WND article is more compelling, if for no other reason than that it offers substantiation, and a pretty damning interview.
——
I offered plenty of substantiation… The Senate rejected the Vitter amendment to cut this funding Lofton is talking about (http://www.lifenews.com/nat3385.html as I mentioned before). We have lost this vote year after year because we don’t have enough pro-life members of Congress willing to cut out Planned Parenthood from the federal budget.
So the real meat of the debate here is not Lofton’s anti-Bush piece. It’s Congress. That’s where the vote on this ridiculous funding is in the first place. And the fact of the matter is that Lofton is doing little or nothing to get us more pro-life members of Cngress to defeat the funding, and attacking the very pro-life groups that are working on it. That is the hypocrisy, not Bush signing a budget that we can get fixed in the first place.
Even if Ertelt is correct and the blame lies with Congress, where is the Bush Administration’s fight to bring this to the public’s attention so it can be remedied? If it were me sitting in the White House and I knew this money was going, unchecked, to America’s largest abortion provider, you bet your bottom dollar I’d be making a racket and doing all in my power to get it stopped.
——–
There is no fight because we don’t have the public support for this. On the **direct** abortion funding, Bush made veto threats and we kept language like the Hyde amendment in the bills. But when only 40 percent of Congress and an even lower percentage of the American public oppose the family planning funding for Planned Parenthood we’ve got little leg to stand on. Lofton would be better served if he explained to the public, like the pro-life groups he condemns do, WHY this funding is horrific, instead of bashing the rest of the pro-life movement. The enemy is Planned Parenthood, not each other.
But then again - I’m pro-life - I don’t just campaign on it.
—–
Well, the rest of us don’t just campaign on it, but thanks anyway.
And that brings us again to the distinction that we so often fail to make. Politicians who claim to be pro-life believe in a platform that secures a voting base. They rarely seem to possess the personal conviction and sense of urgency that those of us who actually believe that abortion is murder do. Maybe it’s why we’re so disappointed every time we elect one of these schmucks only to have them phone it in on January 22nd and maybe appoint a judge or two when it’s their turn, or sign off on a parental notification law.
—–
So let’s see you’re bashing pro-life presidents for giving a speech to pro-life marchers, for appointing judges to overturn Roe and for putting laws in place that protect parental rights and reduce abortions. Hello!! When we snatch victory from the jaws of defeat as you do here, no wonder the pro-life movement hasn’t overturned Roe yet. Once again. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, abortion — those are the opponents here. Not. Each. Other.
Steve,
I appreciate your explanation here, but the fact remains - these “pro-life” candidates we’ve been electing haven’t accomplished anything of substance. More than 2 decades of Republicans in the White House since Roe, and no small amount of time with Congressional majorities, and we haven’t even seen support for something as simple as Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act.
I’m done believing the lies. I’m tired of being pandered to. Without the pro-life vote, the GOP won’t win elections, and that sort of deincentivizes any substantive action on their part.
We are our own enemy when we continue to accept compromised candidates who don’t really fight for us.
Where is the passion? Where are the speeches? Where is the time devoted in State of The Union addresses to the quintessential value of life, rather than throwaway lines or veiled references?
If you want public support then push the President - arguably the leader of his party - to actually advocate for the unborn. After elections are over, we don’t hear a peep about this issue.
I wasn’t implicating you personally - I don’t read your site but I assume “Lifenews.com” is committed to the cause. But politicians who claim to be pro-life offer very little in the way of evidence. Excuses, cop-outs, and finger-pointing get us exactly nowhere. They have a platform, and they should use it. Until I see that happening, I’m disinclined to believe in their sincerity.
Consider what was accomplished by the government in the realm of smoking. Without making cigarettes illegal or anything of the sort, a “pro-health” government was able to drastically reduce cigarette smoking by simple persuasion. Posters, billboards, insurance policies, workforce policies, television and radio commercials, newspaper ads, etc., etc.. A pro-health government simply implemented an anti-smoking campaign of persuasion, and it worked.
It seems to me that a pro-life president - even if he could not get any laws passed or judges appointed - could do something in this area. He can persuade. He can educate through agencies of the executive branch. He can educate through the military. He can plaster the walls of government offices with pro-life posters, place pro-life brochures on their coffee tables, place pro-life magazines in the magazine racks, and ensure that roughly 3 million federal employees know their boss is pro-life. Perhaps he could require that every federal employee undergo “sensitivity training” with respect to the rights of unborn children. He can make sure every school child getting a tour of the White House knows the President is pro-life. He can give speeches. He can send deputies around the country giving speeches. And much more, I am sure.
All of this without passing a single law or appointing a single judge.
When nothing like this has been happening, on any level, I think pro-lifers can be forgiven for doubting the president’s pro-life commitment.
I appreciate your explanation here, but the fact remains - these “pro-life” candidates we’ve been electing haven’t accomplished anything of substance.
—-
That’s not the fact at all… We passed the partial-birth abortion ban, the Born Alive bill, the Unborn Victims bill, the measure to reduce abortions on disabled babies, etc. We’ve passed the Hyde amendment every year and cut off funding for abortions in numerous cases (DC, fed employees health care, military bases, etc). We approved the bill to help Terri Schiavo’s family protect her. We have a number of other bills that could be approved (human cloning ban, parental involvement laws, limits on federal drugs in assisted suicides, etc) that we can’t get approved now because pro-life lawmakers are no longer in control of Congress.
More than 2 decades of Republicans in the White House since Roe, and no small amount of time with Congressional majorities, and we haven’t even seen support for something as simple as Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act.
——–
There’s no support for that because we don’t have the numbers. Instead of just complaining, get involved in electing more pro-life members of Congress!
On the White House side, we HAVE made gains. Bush put in two judges who already upheld one pro-life law and could very likely vote to overturn Roe once we get that last pro-life justice. I’m not sure how you could have completely missed that!
Bush signed every pro-life bill we sent him, threatened vetos of bills with abortion funding, pledged to sign a human cloning ban, withheld money to UNFPA, scrapped funds to promoting abortion in other countries, appointed numerous prolife judges on lower federal courts, tried to stop the use of federal drugs in assisted suicides, promoted the pro-life perspective at the UN, etc. The laundry list of accomplishments is long.
I’m done believing the lies. I’m tired of being pandered to. Without the pro-life vote, the GOP won’t win elections, and that sort of deincentivizes any substantive action on their part.
—-
There are no lies and no pandering, it’s just a matter of you not being informed!
We are our own enemy when we continue to accept compromised candidates who don’t really fight for us. Where is the passion? Where are the speeches? Where is the time devoted in State of The Union addresses to the quintessential value of life, rather than throwaway lines or veiled references?
—–
That has all been there….
I wasn’t implicating you personally - I don’t read your site but I assume “Lifenews.com” is committed to the cause.
——-
Well, that’s the problem then…. Everything you mention has been covered… Bush’s pro-life speeches, pro-life views in the SOTU, all of the accomplishments, etc.
But politicians who claim to be pro-life offer very little in the way of evidence. Excuses, cop-outs, and finger-pointing get us exactly nowhere. They have a platform, and they should use it. Until I see that happening, I’m disinclined to believe in their sincerity.
—–
It’s happening, you just need to do your homework. Start here…http://www.nrlc.org/Records/bush43record0608.pdf
and see some of these links:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1140835/posts
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3219.html
• Republican Party cheerleader Steve Ertelt’s response to my column is pathetic and a tissue of lies. How so? Let us count the ways:
•
• Ertelt: Not mentioned is the fact that this isn’t directly from Bush but from part of the Congressional budget. Pro-life advocates have tried for years to cut this family planning money to Planned Parenthood and we have lost the votes. Most recently we lost a 52-41 vote in the Senate to cut this funding (see http://www.lifenews.com/nat3385.html).
•
• Comment: Bush IS directly responsible because he signed into law the legislation that gave Planned Parenthood $2.2 BILLION! He could have vetoed this legislation if he was truly pro-life – which he is NOT because he thinks it should remain “legal” to murder unborn babies if they are in the womb because of rape or incest. In any given year, Bush could have sent his budget to Congress with ZERO Planned Parenthood funding. He never has.
•
• Ertelt: If we could cut the funding, Bush would gladly sign the non-gifting Planned Parenthood budget, so it’s totally disingenuous to say Bush wants this money and directly gave it to Planned Parenthood.
•
• Comment: The point is Bush could have fought the funding of PP, vetoed all bills funding PP, made a big issue of this. He NEVER Has done any of this. And he is directly responsible for all the PP-funding bills he signed because HE signed them.
•
Ertelt: What is keeping us from having the votes to defeat this PP funding? We don’t have enough pro-life members of the House and Senate. Who opposes these pro-life candidates? Oh yes, John Lofton, a third party advocate, who says any pro-life Republican or Democrat really isn’t pro-life.
•
• Comment: This assertion is a lie and Ertelt can produce no statement I’ve ever made where I’ve said “any pro-life Republican or Democrat really isn’t pro-life.” I have said and repeat it here: Pro-life means PRO-ALL UNBORN HUMAN LIFE – NO EXCEPTIONS!
•
• Ertelt: If Lofton is serious about cutting this $2.2 million in Planned Parenthood funding, he would launch a vigorous campaign to up our pro-life numbers in Congress. He’s done no such thing to my knowledge and frequently attacks the strategy pro-life groups that do and that have led the fight to cut this funding.
Comment: Most “pro-life” Congress members are NOT pro-life because they favor exceptions and believe it’s OK to murder some classes of unborn babies.
Ertelt: So Lofton does nothing to remedy the situation that enables the PP funding. Talk about hypocrisy. The truth of the matter is that Bush has repeatedly cut off abortion funding. He installed the Mexico City Policy to prohibit funding of abortions abroad, he has signed bills with numerous abortion funding bans domestically, and repeatedly cut off funding to UNFPA (and expanded the Reagan year limits in addition) because it is involved in China’s forced abortion programs. To say Bush is not against abortion funding is simply not factual.
Comment: If Bush is “against abortion funding” why has he approved giving at least $2.2 BILLION to Planned Parenthood? Why did he sign into law all the legislation that allowed this? Why did he not veto these bills?
Ertelt: By the way, McCain takes the same position against abortion funding, while Obama does not.
Comment: Wrong. McCain has also voted to give millions to Planned Parenthood and he, too, is not truly pro-life because he, too, like Bush, thinks it should remain “legal” to murder innocent, unborn rape/incest babies.
For more re: the lying lips and Republican Party cheerleading of Ertelt, visit our web site The AmericanView.com and put his name in our search engine.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
Jlof@aol.com
Steve,
What statistical change has all this legislation around the edges brought about? What are the hard numbers? Are lives being saved? Why is it that the number of abortions never drops below 1.2 million annually? The most drastic drop in abortions took place during the presidency of Bill Clinton, of all people - from 1993-2001 the number dropped from 1.5 million annually to 1.3.
And while any drop is important, I continue to ask: WHERE ARE THE CRUSADERS FOR LIFE WHO WILL DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO BRING AN END TO THIS?
You say that our “pro-life” politicians out there fighting for it. When? This should be their top priority. Why doesn’t everyone know about it? Why isn’t it a regular item in the news?
There’s no support for that because we don’t have the numbers. Instead of just complaining, get involved in electing more pro-life members of Congress!
Show them to me! Show me the ones who care about this as much as I do. Show me the ones who won’t back down from this fight. Let me see someone who speaks on this issue with the eloquence of Alan Keyes, or puts forward the kind of practical legislation of Ron Paul.
If there’s no support for something like the Sanctity of Life Act, then where is McCain, using all of his clout as a 26-year member of the Senate trying to raise awareness of the bill? Why has it been allowed to die twice without so much as a media campaign?
When these guys care about something - anything - you hear about it. When it comes to pro-life, you have to dig to find out what’s been done, only to find out its been marginal and not the sort of thing that makes a significant impact.
This is a back burner issue for most politicians, even those who declare themselves pro-life. I’ll look through the materials you linked to, but I doubt that I’ll be convinced. I read news all day, every day (it’s my job) and I am not seeing this stuff out there. It needs to be taken to a higher level. This should be foremost on the agenda of any President, Senator, or Congressman who believes in it.
There should be executive orders. There should be numerous bills introduced so the issue can’t be ignored. Something along the lines of Santity of Life Act should have been pushed through Congress when we had a majority.
It’s one thing to sign bills when they cross your desk. It’s another to actively fight for the cause and make sure those bills keep coming, and keep being written with more substance. Jeff’s analogy of the anti-smoking campaign is perfectly appropriate here.
Instead, we get Cindy McCain telling Dianne Sawyer - with her husband sitting right next to her - that abortion just isn’t the issue on people’s minds right now.
A few quick points, since Lofton essentially helps me make my case…
* Bush didn’t veto the budget because he knew we don’t have the votes to rid it of the Planned Parenthood funding. We’re on the losing side on this. Lofton concedes my point that Bush would sign a budget that zeroes out Planned Parenthood funding.
* To get on the winning side, I propose electing more pro-life members of the Senate who will vote against funding. Lofton fails to demonstrate how he is doing anything of consequence to make that happen. Instead, he labels the 41 members of the Senate who voted to defeat the funding as “not pro-life.”
* Lofton says pro-life members of Congress are not pro-life because they support rape and incest exceptions. (Not all of them do and I don’t). Lofton won’t campaign for them, won’t support them, etc. So the very people who are in office or could be elected who could cut Planned Parenthood’s funding are the very candidates he claims aren’t pro-life and he won’t lift a finger to get/stay in office. See the hypocrisy here? Lofton condemns the problem of PP funding but won’t do a darn thing about it. All talk, no action.
* Lofton misstates the position of John McCain on abortion funding. As recently as April 2005, and several times before that, McCain opposed an attempt to send taxpayer money to groups that perform or promote abortions in other nations. This anti-funding rule, known as the Mexico City Policy, is expected to be one of the first to be removed under a potential Obama administration as he has voted to scrap it. During his tenure in the House and Senate, McCain has also voted against taxpayer funding of abortion at military hospitals, in the District of Columbia, in the federal employee’s health insurance plan, on Indian reservations and has supported the Hyde Amendment to ban direct abortion funding in almost all cases. Anyone can find those votes by going to the Thomas web site.
Lofton says pro-life members of Congress are not pro-life because they support rape and incest exceptions.
How are they “pro-life”? They are selective. They’re pro-abortion when the circumstances suit them.
You know how important semantics are in this battle. We need to stop giving these people a free pass for their less-than-acceptable positions and put pressure on them to step up to the plate. Nobody should be called “pro-life” when they aren’t pro-life 100% of the time. It’s a game, and it confuses the issue.
What statistical change has all this legislation around the edges brought about? What are the hard numbers? Are lives being saved?
——-
Yes…lives are being saved… We’ve cut about 300,000 abortions a year….
In January, AGI reported that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990. Additionally, the report shows the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women age 15-44) down to 19.4 per thousand — the lowest since 1974. That was the first full year following the Roe v. Wade decision.
Why is it that the number of abortions never drops below 1.2 million annually? The most drastic drop in abortions took place during the presidency of Bill Clinton, of all people - from 1993-2001 the number dropped from 1.5 million annually to 1.3.
—–
They are below 1.2 now… and actually the abortion numbers went up at the end of the Clinton term.
And while any drop is important, I continue to ask: WHERE ARE THE CRUSADERS FOR LIFE WHO WILL DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO BRING AN END TO THIS?
——-
We’re out here doing it! Seriously, you need to follow things a little more closely and a subscription to LifeNews.com would help. Sign up for the news….
You say that our “pro-life” politicians out there fighting for it. When? This should be their top priority. Why doesn’t everyone know about it? Why isn’t it a regular item in the news?
——–
It is in our news… but if you’re relying on the mainstream media no wonder you’re missing out.
Show them to me! Show me the ones who care about this as much as I do.
——
Good grief, we report on them all the time… I demonstrated how 40 of them voted against the PP funding you complained about. Hello!
If ther’s no support for something like the Sanctity of Life Act, then where is McCain, using all of his clout as a 26-year member of the Senate trying to raise awareness of the bill? Why has it been allowed to die twice without so much as a media campaign?
——
Because a) there are not enough votes for it and b) the SC would kill it as unconstitutional. That’s why we need McCain, to appoint good judges who would uphold this bill.
There should be executive orders. There should be numerous bills introduced so the issue can’t be ignored. Something along the lines of Santity of Life Act should have been pushed through Congress when we had a majority.
——
There have been!!!
Instead, we get Cindy McCain telling Dianne Sawyer - with her husband sitting right next to her - that abortion just isn’t the issue on people’s minds right now.
——
Sadly, she’s right… the economy is trumping everything right now.
Just thought I’d say that this conversation is eighteen kinds of awesome.
Ditto for Joe Marier’s comment. Thanks Steves.
Where are the politicians treating abortion like the holocaust it is? Where are the politicians waking up everyday and saying to our Congress, “We won’t solve any problems until we treat EACH human life with respect.” Do they actually say that in Congress? Is this a holocaust? Where are the pro-life politicians telling us that we can’t have abortion because it’s killing human life? Has Sarah Palin even said that? Abortion = murder? Sorry that the truth is too P.C. to say! Why “reduce” abortions if it isn’t murder? And if it’s the ending of human life, isn’t this the worst thing a society can do short of nuclear annihilation?
If someone broke into your house and began shooting your family, one by one, would you sit back and say, “Well, at least we almost have enough judges for this guy to be convicted someday.” Or how about, “Well, at least he won’t kill any of us by sucking our brains out. Nope! Just good old fashioned cutting up of the limbs for us!” But our families are safe, aren’t they? Nice and safe. We can defend them. No one can save the lives of the babies who are legally murdered as I write this. Not even their country, which is duty bound to protect them.
We’re the pro-life society that pins a medal on Gov. Palin for having her child, instead of screaming at the top of our lungs, “Why doesn’t everyone else have their kids too? Why aren’t we stopping legalized murder in this country?”
Vote Traceski for Dist. 52 CT State Rep.
Where are the pro-lifers on Saturday mornings when PP is killing babies? Where are the pro-lifers when women call a pregnancy hotline looking for help? Where are the pro-lifers when 40 Days for Life comes to town? Where are the pro-lifers when a crisis pregnancy center ask for volunteers and/or money? Where are the pro-lifers when post-abortive women are looking for help?
You ask, is this a holocaust? Yes, it is…and just like the last time there was a holocaust a lot of good people are shaking their heads and saying, isn’t it terrible, why doesn’t someone stop it? I am all for calling politicians to task but how are they supposed to know we believe abortion is murder when 15 people show up to protest at PP on a Saturday morning? How is a woman contemplating abortion to know we care when she gets a busy signal every time she calls the crisis pregnancy hotline? How are we supposed to change hearts when we can’t give out time?
If you really believe it’s murder then saying you’re just too busy with work and the kids and the blah, blah, blah to protest, answer a phone, volunteer at a CPP, or drop a check in the mail just doesn’t cut it. Pray like it’s up to God and work like it’s up to you. To paraphrase Chesterton: why is abortion still legal? Because I don’t do enough to stop it.
Mary, you are right on. Imagine if we all voted like it’s up to God, not just prayed like it’s up to God. In the end, God changes hearts and minds, not us! God will end abortion. He’d like to do it through us, but He’ll do it the hard way if we are too stubborn.
Oh, how I would dearly love to see John Lofton in a debate with the man-child Ertelt on this issue. Of course, Ertelt knows full well that Lofton would wipe the floor with him in a moderated debate forum, so I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
Thanks for the laugh Andrew. Hope your post made you feel better.