Hey, Hey, Were the Monkeys

In Spain, the ruling Socialist party has proposed legislation in parliament that would grant personhood status to primates and give them the same moral and legal protections currently reserved only for humans. 

Their rationale is that the genetic code for a human is 98.4 percent the same as a chimpanzee, 97.7 percent the same as a gorilla and 96.4 percent the same as an orangutan.  Interestingly, elective abortion is legal in Spain which means that the unborn are not seen as persons despite the fact that their genetic code is 100 percent the same as a human.  In fact ... they are human! 

That aside, we assume that if this legislation is enacted it will expand the “right to choose” to include the country’s politically influential monkey population.  After all, it doesn’t seem fair to discriminate against our knuckle-dragging cousins simply because their ancestors chose to remain monkeys while ours decided to swing down out of the trees, stand upright, and morph into human beings.

Tiller Charged, Cover-Up Begins

In 2002, a Life Dynamics undercover sting produced irrefutable evidence that the American abortion industry is operating a nationwide pedophile protection ring (see: ChildPredators.com).

When this information was made public, the Attorney General of Kansas, Phill Kline, became the first attorney general in the nation with the courage to launch an investigation.  Although the abortion lobby carried out a vicious and deceptive campaign to derail Kline's investigation, at a December 22 news conference, lawyers for notorious Kansas abortionist, George Tiller, announced that Kline had filed 30 criminal charges against Tiller, most of which relate to abortions he performed on underage children.

These indictments were based on records subpoenaed from Tiller and show that the overwhelming majority of the abortions were performed on patients who were between 25 and 28 weeks pregnant.  However, two of the charges involve patients who were 31 weeks pregnant at the time of their procedures.  In what is probably the most troubling incident, Count Three of the indictment is based on an abortion Tiller performed in July of 2003 on a 10-year-old girl who was 28 weeks pregnant. 

In addition, not one of the records indicated any physical health problems with either the mom or the baby.  In every case, the justification given for killing the baby was either “stress” or “depression.”  In short, according to Tiller’s own files, these were purely elective third-trimester abortions performed on healthy moms to destroy healthy babies. And in most cases they were performed on minor children.

When the story about these criminal charges broke, the Kansas abortion lobby immediately began to circle the wagons.  Within a few hours, the District Attorney of Sedgewick County, Nola Foulston, filed a motion to have the charges dismissed claiming that she had not been consulted about them before they were filed, as required by Kansas law.  For the record, Foulston is well-known in Kansas as an outspoken proponent of legalized abortion and a personal friend of Tiller.

Contrary to Foulston's story, Kline says that he did meet with her in her Wichita office prior to filing the charges and that there were three witnesses to the meeting.  He also says that Foulston told him that she had no problem with the charges.

Obviously, somebody is lying.  In order to buy Foulston’s version, you have to first believe that it was just some sort of cosmic coincidence that within minutes after this phantom meeting ended, Foulston filed a motion to dismiss the charges in the court of Democrat Judge Paul W. Clark.

The only logical conclusion is that the meeting did take place and that Foulston lied to Kline to keep him from knowing beforehand that she intended to file this motion.  She had to know that if Kline was given a chance to fight her motion, he would prevail.  Given that, it is no great leap in logic to speculate that she hand-picked a judge she knew would let her keep Kline in the dark until the hearing was over, thereby preventing him from being present and defending his position.

Of course, the best evidence that this was the plan is the fact that, in the end, it is precisely what happened.  In a hastily convened legal proceeding in which one of the primary parties was excluded, Clark approved Foulston’s motion and dismissed the charges.  For those who may be tempted to challenge the assertion that Clark was hand-picked for this job, it should be noted that the Sedgewick County website lists Clark as a traffic court judge.  The fact is, the fix was in and Clark was going to show Foulston and the rest of the Kansas abortion mafia that he was a company man.  

Kline’s reaction to this scam was to demand that another hearing be held.  The good news was that his request was granted.  The bad news was that this new hearing was directed right back into Clark’s traffic court.

When the lawyer representing the Attorney General’s office finished his argument, Clark immediately reissued his initial ruling which he read from a prepared written text.  In other words, he walked into the courtroom with his ruling already made.  Listening to Kline’s legal argument was nothing more than a politically-necessary formality.  It was not going to change anything.

In the days after this sleazy stunt was pulled, legal scholars appearing on national television pointed out that the Kansas law in question clearly shows that Kline has the legal right to bring such charges, despite the claims of Foulston and Clark.  These experts had also read the charges Kline brought against Tiller and found that they were correctly filled and fully supported by evidence subpoenaed from Tiller himself.  One even went so far as to indicate that he was totally bewildered how Clark could come to his ruling since the law was so clear and unambiguous.

Looking back, it is now clear that Foulston’s and Clark’s actions were nothing more than a stall.  They were aware that Kline had lost his bid for re-election and that his successor, Paul Morrison, is a raging pro-abort whose campaign took hundreds-of-thousands of dollars from Tiller.  So their strategy was to use this phony legal maneuver to keep Kline at bay until his term ran out.  Even if some higher court were to rule that Foulston’s motion was groundless and Clark’s ruling improper, it wouldn’t matter as long as the ruling came after January 8, 2007 – the day Kline has to turn over the attorney general’s office to Tiller’s buddy.

Kline’s reaction was to appoint a special prosecutor, attorney Don McKinney, who can continue the effort to hold George Tiller accountable even after Kline leaves office. The only question is whether he will be given the chance to do so.  It is entirely conceivable – perhaps even likely – that the new pro-abortion attorney general will fire McKinney as a political payoff to Tiller.    

In the final analysis, this sorry episode is just more proof that the abortion mafia – which in this case includes a godless and corrupt district attorney – is always prepared to lie, cheat, steal, and wallow in even the filthiest cesspool in order to keep America’s death camps churning out victims.

But whatever happens, the good news is that this opera ain’t over.  The evidence against Tiller is building and the day is rapidly approaching when even his most loyal media and political flunkeys will be unable to cover his tracks. Whether or not Attorney General Kline is successful in getting the charges reinstated before he leaves office, and whether or not the special prosecutor is fired by his pro-abortion successor, the abortion lobby’s frantic and desperate response to this situation shows that Tiller is surviving on little more than sips of hope.

So stay tuned.  The fat lady is warming up.

A Tale of Two Rivers

We have all seen situations in which some problem appears to have an obvious solution that is being ignored. When this happens in the political arena, we tend to dismiss it as being the fault of "the system." The more likely explanation is that some "dirty little secret" lurks in the shadows that we don't know about and our political leaders don't want us to know about.

Such is the case with the debate over illegal immigration. Today, some politicians are strutting around calling for round-ups and border fences, while others hawk guest-worker programs, amnesty, or instant citizenship. Despite all this grandstanding, both camps are fully aware that these proposals will never solve the problem.

The real solution is to pass legislation making it a federal crime (with mandatory jail time) to knowingly employ someone who is in this country illegally. Although similar laws are already in place, there is a loophole. As long as the worker has a social security number, the employer is off the hook whether that number is legitimate or not. What we need is legislation requiring employers to confirm that anyone they hire is legally eligible to work in the United States. They could do this by simply accessing a government-sponsored system that would instantly tell them whether the prospective employee's social security number is legitimate. Such a system would be easy to create and less cumbersome than the one that currently allows a merchant to authorize a customer's credit card.

The obvious advantage here is that the first time some corporate CEO or small-time roofing contractor violates this law and ends up on the evening news in handcuffs and leg-irons, the illegal immigration problem is history. At that point, our biggest task would be unsnarling the traffic jams on the southbound lanes of Interstate 35.

The reason Congress isn't pursuing this painfully obvious solution becomes clear when we analyze the financial tsunami that is rolling toward the United States.

Very shortly, America's baby boomers will start reaching retirement age and they will do so at the rate of about 10,000 per day for the next 18 years. Contrary to what most people seem to think, the money baby boomers are owed through social security is long gone. Over the years, Congress grabbed it, left an IOU in its place, and squandered it to buy votes.

In the [2000] presidential election, Al Gore blathered endlessly about the need for a "lock box" to protect the funds being held by the social security system. He was lying. He knows good and well that there is no need for such a lock box because Congress has been running a Ponzi scheme with social security and there is no money left to protect. The result is that the day is rapidly approaching when younger taxpayers will be forced to send boxcars full of their money to the government in order to pay for services that were already paid for once. Any way you cut it, the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the baby boomers are going to be taxed into oblivion replacing the money that was stolen by Congress.

That's where abortion comes in. The designers of social security based it on an assumption of an ever-growing, or at least stabile, workforce. They could not foresee that America would one day legalize the wholesale slaughter of its own children. But on January 22, 1973, that is precisely what happened. The result has been that at least one-fourth of the taxpayers needed to replace the money baby boomers paid into the system, were wiped out before drawing their first breath. Moreover, for every day the American holocaust continues, another 3300 future taxpayers are executed in the womb. To appreciate the impact of this, consider that since abortion has been legal, birth rates in the United States have often been below population replacement levels. In fact, if one removes immigration from the census figures, America's population has been flat or, by some estimates, in decline. For the social security system, that has been a disaster waiting to happen and the wait is just about over.

Today, there is a vigorous national debate going on about whether illegal immigrants are only taking jobs American workers don't want anyway. That may or may not be true. However, it is undeniable that illegal immigrants are replacing workers who were killed through abortion.

To understand the significance of this, it is necessary to dispel a myth. Most people seem to believe that illegal workers are only paid in cash and, therefore, pay no taxes or social security. That is not true. According to experts in this field, most illegal immigrants get their jobs by using counterfeit social security cards purchased on the black market. This means that taxes and social security are deducted from their checks. But since they are illegal, no matter how much they pay into the social security system, they can never take money out of it. This is what makes illegal immigration such a bonanza for Congress.

In recent years, the amount of money paid into the system that will never be paid out in benefits has become so large that the government now factors it into Social Security Administration projections. In fact, the IRS has even assigned this fund a name. It's called the "earnings suspense file" and it currently brings in between six and seven billion dollars a year. The IRS says that about three-fourths of this money comes from the paychecks of illegal immigrants. Some independent sources claim the percentage is higher.

Ironically, this has created a situation in which a minimum wage illegal immigrant working on a fake social security card and paying little in social security, is ultimately more valuable to the system than a high-income legal worker who pays in the maximum. That's because legal workers generally get more back from social security than they pay in, while illegal workers operating on phony social security cards get back nothing.

When it comes to illegal immigration, this is the "dirty little secret" America's politicians don't want you to know. It is also why this debate about whether or not illegal workers should be given some sort of legal status is such a waste of time. For Congress, only illegal immigrants are an asset. The instant they are made legal, they become an enormous liability. So make no mistake about it, they will remain illegal.

Naturally, there are people who will challenge my suggestion that the government makes a profit off illegal immigration. They will point out that the American people are being forced to spend astronomical amounts of money on education, medical care, law enforcement, welfare, etc. for people who are in the country illegally.

They are correct. There is indeed a large and expanding catalogue of financial burdens linked to illegal immigration. What is overlooked, however, is that the overwhelming majority of these expenses are born by the states, while the social security deducted from the paychecks of illegal workers goes only to the feds.

In effect, illegal immigration has become a pipeline for transferring money from the states to the federal government. So even if the overall financial burden of illegal immigration far exceeds its benefits to the social security system, since the states pay most of the expenses and the feds get all of the revenue, Congress has a vested interest in not rocking the boat. Given that Congress is the one that makes immigration policy, it's a safe bet that any changes are going to be little more than superficial.

The bottom line is that the illegal immigration issue has less to do with people crossing the Rio Grande than it does with the 535 grifters camped out on the Potomac. Every member of Congress knows that they can stop illegal immigration, but they also know that doing so would expose the social security scam they've been running. That's why their "strategy" for dealing with this issue has been to tap-dance around it and trust that the media and the public will eventually become distracted by something else.

Of course, the link between illegal immigration and social security is just a symptom. The disease is legalized abortion and its assumption that we can savagely execute innocent human beings without consequence. In 1973, America bought that lie and, now, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Of course, the fallout from the legalization of abortion will ultimately go far beyond the costs of illegal immigration. Let's not forget that a generation that killed its own children whenever it found them inconvenient, unhealthy or expensive will soon be inconvenient, unhealthy and expensive itself. At that point, we will likely find that when a society morally bankrupts itself by legalizing abortion, it is then conditioned to solve the financial and social problems created by an aging population by methods which previous generations would have considered unthinkable. Maybe then we will understand that God was serious when He said that we reap what we sow.

Double Talk

In Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that state prohibitions against abortion are unlawful because the unborn are not  “persons in the whole sense.”  In other words, the Court concluded that whether the unborn are living human beings or not is irrelevant.  It’s okay to execute them by the millions as long as we tell ourselves they are not really persons. 

This is a textbook example of what George Orwell meant when he wrote that some things are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.  The reality is, this loopy idea that someone can be a “partial-person” or a “non-person” doesn't exist in the real world.  In fact, even the deceased are often called “dead persons.”

When confronted with the reality that the English language does not even have a word for a human being who is not a person, abortion defenders often reply that the unborn are not really human beings but only “potential human life.” 

Of course, for this to be accurate the unborn would have to have the possibility of becoming either a human being or some other form of life.  Perhaps a parrot or a spider. 

The problem is, there's no record of any such thing having ever occurred.  Even though it may be a difficult concept for the pro-choice crowd to grasp, the fact is that every time a human female gives birth, she gives birth to another human being. 

So while it is entirely reasonable to say that a fetus is a potential major league baseball player or a potential schoolteacher, it is idiotic to say that a fetus is a potential human being.  Even Orwell could not have predicted that a time would come when people would actually suggest that the product of human reproduction may or may not be human.  From the moment of conception, the unborn child is a living human being because that is the only thing it can be. 

Another argument we sometimes hear is that the unborn are not really human beings because they are not fully developed.  The flaw in that is that human beings develop for their entire lives.  A fetus is less developed than a newborn just as a five-year-old is less developed than an adult.  However, no one can logically claim that the five-year-old is less human.

In the end, the driving force behind the abortion lobby’s catalogue of rhetorical nonsense is obvious.  Throughout history, whenever one group of people has wanted to justify the extermination of another group of people, they assign their victims labels intended to take away their humanity.  From the beginning of time, this “de-humanizing” process has been the mechanism barbarians have relied upon to make their particular brand of killing seem palatable.  

The good news is, history shows that this sort of deception inevitably unravels.  And that will happen in this case as well.  When this holocaust is over – and one day it will be – it will be universally seen that our enemies were never anything more than cold-blooded serial killers.

They are simply the barbarians du jour.


Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics