Today, at least, it’s Matt Barber, Cultural Director for the Concerned Women for America (yes, that’s Matt Barber and the Concerned Women for America — hee hee, we never get tried of that!)

Who’s The Worst Person In The World?

It’s not Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It’s not even Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot or Adolph Hitler. No, according to Keith Olbermann — that blinkered liberal extremist who plays a newsman on TV — Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), is "the worst person in the world."

Okay.  Olbermann picks three people to be the "Worst Person In The World" every day.  He’s not talkin about "the worst person" of all time, throughout all history.

So right away, Matt is off to a bad start.

While discussing abstinence education during a recent interview on the Fox News Channel’s Special Report, Wright accurately pointed out that the most strident devotees of that abysmal failure tagged "comprehensive sex education" are most likely to benefit financially when children and teens become pregnant or contract sexually transmitted diseases.

Why is "comprehensive sex education" an "abysmal failure"?  Matt doesn’t say.  He doesn’t say because it simply ain’t true.  In fact, the "abysmal failure" is not "comprehensive sex education" but rather, it’s polar opposite: abstinence-only education.  For 14 years, the teen birth rate has declined.  Then in the mid-2000’s, abstinence education was introduced around the country, and — voila — teen births are rising up again.  As are STDs.

Call me crazy, but I would call that a "failure".

During the interview, Wright hit the nail squarely on the head, saying, "In fact, they want to encourage [kids to have sex] because they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions. So, you have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed."

This is not only the biggest lie of the whole Barber piece, but the most transparent.  But let’s get to the meat of what he’s saying:

And the financial motives are staggering. According to its own annual report, Planned Parenthood — which receives its lion’s share of profit from abortion — performed 264,943 abortions in the 2006 fiscal year, raking in an astronomical $55.8 million in profit … free and clear.

There it is.  Now a quick glance might cause one to think that Planned Parenthood achieved a $55.8 million dollar profit, strictly from abortions.

In fact, if you look at the Annual Report of Planned Parenthood (available online), a number of things stand out.

First of all, we learn that PP is a non-profit organization.  So, there’s that.

Now it’s true that non-profit organizations deal with money.  They perform services.  Doctors and other employees get paid.  But Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report makes it clear that it does not actually have a net plus from its medical services.  Its expenses for its "medical services" far exceed, by hundreds of millions of dollars, its revenues from its health centers.

And by the way, what are these medical services?  Well, surprise, surprise.  Mostly providing contraception.  37% of its medical services is that.  STD and HIV screening account for another 29%.  Cancer screening is another 20%.  How much of PP’s medical services are devoted to abortions?

Three percent.

And nowhere in the report does it say that it receives "the lion’s share of profit from abortion" — that’s simply not true.

Now, does PP have a net plus on its balance sheet?  Sure.  But that’s mostly due to government grants.  Not from its medical services (a small portion of which, as we’ve seen, include abortions).

So Planned Parenthood is making massive profits from abortions?  Matt is simply lying here, again.

It doesn’t take a Phi Beta Kappa to figure out that Planned Parenthood — one of the foremost cheerleaders of "comprehensive sex ed" — has a vested interest in seeing that young girls become pregnant and have abortions. It’s a classic case of "the fox watching the hen house." "Comprehensive sex ed" spells money in the bank because it actually encourages kids to have sex. It doesn’t work, and they know it.

This is insipidly stupid logic.

Think about it.  If Planned Parenthood had a "vested interest" in seeing that young girls become pregnant, then why do they devote 37% of their medical services — the largest portion — to contraception?  And only 3% to abortions?  Isn’t that shooting themselves in the foot?

Well, Wright’s comments didn’t sit well with the left. Liberal bloggers went nuts, and in a recent episode of MSNBC’s poorly rated "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," the painfully "progressive" talking-head took issue with Wendy for pointing out this clear conflict of interest, crowning her "the worst person in the world."

I didn’t see the show, but I don’t think it was merely because Wendy had a "conflict of interest".  I think it was because she was an idiot, spouting the same idiot talking points we see here.

Toward the end of his decidedly obtuse monologue, Olbermann — whose joke writer is also apparently on strike — smugly quipped, "And the condoms the sex educators keep trying to make available to the kids, those are for what … water balloons?"

Well, Poindexter, yes, in fact. That’s precisely what kids are using them for. Take the African AIDS epidemic. As CWA reported a few years back, Dr. Margaret Ogola of Kenya testified at two United Nations conferences that, "’family planners’ have put so many condoms into Kenya that the children use them as balloons and play with them in the streets."

And is that happening in America, Mr. Barber? 

Tragically, we all know how "comprehensive sex education" has worked-out in Africa.

No we don’t.  Because there hasn’t been comprehensive sex education in Africa.  perhaps that’s why children use them as balloons, hmmmm?

Unfortunately, it’s no better right here at home.

He doesn’t have the facts to prove it though, which is why he has to point to Africa (and STILL get it wrong).

Despite a culture that relentlessly extols the phantom virtues of so-called "safe sex" and practically throws condoms at children by the handful, STD and teen pregnancy rates remain high.

And as noted above, they only went up AFTER the institution of abstinence-only education.

Like a broken record, liberal educators and cultural elites incessantly regurgitate, "always have safe sex," while the only thing impressionable, hormone charged kids hear is, "have sex!"

Hmmm.  Well, presumably then, when you tell those same kids "Don’t have sex", they will only hear the last two words.  Right?

Of course, "safe sex" is code for "use a condom," and everyone knows that condoms are anything but reliable. It’s like telling kids to walk a paper thin latex tightrope. There’s a good chance it’ll snap and there’s no safety net below.

Barber conveniently ignores the point of course that "comprehensive sex education" includes abstinence teaching.  Heck, I even remember that.  They said, "The safest method of sex is to not have it at all.  The second safest is to use contraception."  And someone I and billions of other "impressionable, hormone charged" kids were able to retain that information.  Really, it’s not that complicated a message.

And a "good chance" they’ll snap?  Three percent?

Even radical feminists such as the vice president of the Gainesville, Florida, National Organization for Women (NOW) and a "committee chair" of the University of Florida NOW, publicly admitted during testimony before a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hearing that condoms failed them personally — sometimes on multiple occasions. If experts like NOW feminists can’t use condoms effectively, how can we expect children to?

Easy answer — We can’t.

Um, yes we can.  You see, those women were testifying before the FDA to promote the approval of Plan B (the so-called morning after pill).  Forgot to mention that little detail didn’t you, Matt?

Look, we know that abstinence is the only foolproof method guaranteed to prevent unwanted teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Yet the many successes associated with abstinence education go completely unreported by a biased media, as a handful of rigged studies conducted by "comprehensive sex ed" proponents make headlines.

Yes.  All those biased "rigged studies".  Not like the studies you find if you click on Matt’s link.  For example, did you know that a study conducted by the Virginia Department of Health’s Virginia Abstinence Education Initiative concluded that abstinence education is effective when compared to not having any program at all?  Who knew???

It’s a clear attempt to undermine the impressive success of abstinence education, while — at the same time — endeavoring to salvage its failed "comprehensive sex ed" counterpart. If it weren’t so serious, it’d be funny. Still, Planned Parenthood is laughing all the way to the bank.

Yes, those crafty bastards at Planned Parenthood.  Providing abortion and other medical services to low-income people.  What a money maker that must be.

So, congratulations Wendy. It’s obvious from the left’s reaction to your comments that you struck a tender nerve. Anytime you inject truth into the analysis, they go apoplectic.

Injecting truth in the analysis?

And if Olbermann is the chief protagonist for liberal thought, I think the conservative movement is going to be just fine. Anytime you’ve got Keith Olbermann’s goat, you know you’re doing something right.

Well, that’s the goal of course, isn’t it?  To get the goat of a TV pundit?