The Parade of Useful Idiots Begins

Whenever the Communists targeted a country for takeover, they would always recruit “fellow travelers” from inside the country to help pave the way.  Often they would be members of the existing government, or the press, or academia, but it was possible for them to come from any disaffected or dissatisfied segment of the society. 

The interesting thing is, once the Communists came to power, they would inevitably have these people executed or, at least, thrown in prison.  Since they had already proven that they were willing to overthrow an established government, they were considered a threat to the new regime.  Besides, they had already served their purpose. 

Although this pattern was repeated over and over, it seemed that there was never a shortage of new fellow travelers willing to help out when the Reds came a calling.  Evidently, these new believers convinced themselves that this phenomenon would not repeat itself in their case.  This sort of thinking earned them the title, “useful idiots.”

Now, it seems that the GOP has decided that this strategy might be right for the 2008 presidential campaign.  In the past, they have relied on the Doctrine of Lesser Evils to entice pro-lifers to vote for those Republicans who were, to say the least, mushy on abortion.  The sales pitch went something like, “Our guy might not be exactly what you want, but he is better than the complete moral degenerate put up by the Democrats.”

The Republican Party hierarchy seemed willing to stay with this strategy for the 2008 campaign as long as their hand-picked boy, Rudy Giuliani, was perceived as a lock for the nomination.  But two things happened they didn’t count on.  First, even though the Democrats are poised to nominate someone who could probably make Charles Manson seem like the lesser of two evils, a significant part of the Republican base does not see the Giuliani as any better.  The second complicating factor is that, to the chagrin of the GOP’s power structure, the polls are showing that Mike Huckabee has turned into a legitimate threat. 

To counter these two problems, it seems that the GOP has decided to field its own team of useful idiots.  In just the last few days, several Republicans who claim to be pro-life have scurried from under the baseboards to urge the GOP’s Christian and pro-life base to rally behind the pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, anti-Second Amendment, thrice-married, Rudy Giuliani.  Not only that, but they are doing this in the primary when several pro-life / pro-family candidates are still in the race.

The most high-profile turncoats so far are Christian Coalition founder, Pat Robertson, and Texas governor, Rick Perry, both of whom have lavished praise on their new best-buddy, Rudy.  Making this situation even more preposterous is the excuse they are using to justify their treachery.  Their claim is that Giuliani has assured them that he will only appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court. 

The problem is, Giuliani has repeatedly stated that he supports Roe v. Wade.  Obviously, the only way a self-described  “strict constructionist” could take that position is for him to believe that there is a constitutional right to abortion.  But somehow, we are expected to conclude that such a person is going to help return legal protection to the unborn.  Apparently, the GOP Illuminati is designing their 2008 strategy around the theory that those of us in the great unwashed masses are really stupid.

When the Rick Perry and Pat Robertson types are placed in a position where they cannot logically reconcile their pro-life claims with their gushing support for a pro-abort, they inevitably counter that there are other issues besides abortion.  They talk about economics, border security and other issues, but the most common justification they give is that Giuliani would be better than Clinton in the war on terrorism.  While that may or may not be true, let’s assume that it is.  When someone says that they will support a pro-abort for that reason, what they are really saying is, “I’m willing to let unborn babies be dropped in the grease by the millions if that’s what it takes to save my own skin.”

The point is, it is obscene for someone to claim to be pro-life while saying that a candidate’s position on abortion is just “one of the many issues we have to look at.”  For the true pro-lifer, if a candidate is wrong about the wholesale slaughter of children, they cannot be right enough on any other issue to make up for it.  And when people like Rick Perry and Pat Robertson actually endorse them, it only proves that either they were frauds all along or that they never understood the pro-life principle to begin with.

So let’s cut to the chase here.  It has always been known that there are a lot of people within the pro-life movement who are more Republican than pro-life.  What’s happening right now is that the GOP’s useful idiot campaign is smoking them out.  Fortunately for them, when the campaign is over they will not be executed or put in prison.  Instead, they will be exiled into irrelevance until they become useful again.  My suspicion is that this process will take four years.

In the mean time, the unanswered question is whether we will follow the Robertsons and Perrys into the abyss of abandoned principles and auctioned souls.  In short, will we let them play us the way Giuliani and the Republican Party is playing them?    

If we do, I guess we are the real idiots.

Sex, Condoms and Motorcycle Helmets

The Godless Left continues its relentless attacks on abstinence-based sex-ed programs, calling them unrealistic since, “teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do.”

To understand the fallacy in this fatalistic claim, imagine that a teenage girl tells her parents that she is not interested in having sex but her boyfriend is pressuring her.  The question is, should her parents tell her that she is being unrealistic to expect him to be abstinent?  Should they tell her that she will have to either jump in bed with him or just accept that he will go out and have sex with other girls? 

Obviously, no decent parent would say that to their daughter.  They would tell her that abstinence is entirely reasonable.  That exposes the “kids-are-going-to-have-sex-no-matter-what-we-do” argument as a lie.  After all, if it is realistic for a teenage boy to abstain because his girlfriend doesn’t want to have sex, then it is equally realistic for him to abstain because he has been taught that it is the right thing to do. 

Today, people are starting to pick up on the fact that, after public schools began introducing contraception-based sex-ed in the 1960s, America’s relatively small teen pregnancy problem exploded into an epidemic of promiscuity, teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases.  They are also noticing that children are now having sex at much younger ages.  Whereas forty years ago it would have been front-page news for a 12-year-old girl to be pregnant, today it is not even unusual.

This has caught many liberal social engineers between a rock and a hard place.   They abhor the abstinence message, but they see it gaining popularity among parents who have seen that contraception-based sex education has been a train wreck.  In this environment, the pill-pushers have decided to advocate what they call “Abstinence Plus” or “Comprehensive Sex Education.”  Trying to appear reasonable, they now claim to support abstinence-based programs as an addition to contraception-based programs.  Some even grudgingly, though insincerely, agree that abstinence should be primary. 

This is a scam.  These people know that pushing contraception and abstinence together will neutralize the abstinence message.  It’s no different than parents telling their teenagers,  “Don’t drink and drive, but if you do, don’t spill anything on the seats” or “Don’t smoke, but if you do, use filtered cigarettes” or “Don’t take a gun to school, but if you do, don’t point it at anyone” or “Don’t use heroin, but if you do, don’t leave needles lying around where your little brother can get them” or “Don’t drive my new Corvette while I’m out of town, but if you do, replace the gas you use.”

The fact is, America’s epidemic of teen pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases was caused by a dramatic increase in sexual activity among children, and all the condoms and birth control pills in the world will not turn that around.  The only solution is to reduce the sexual activity rate of children, and mixed messages will never do that.

A good analogy can be drawn between contraception-based sex-ed and motorcycle helmets.  As someone who has been riding, building and/or racing motorcycles for 47 of my 59 years, I can assure you that someone is better off wearing a helmet than not wearing one.  However, helmets do not make riding motorcycles safe and I have never heard one helmet or motorcycle manufacturer contend otherwise.

Let’s say, however, that we decided to let our school systems make motorcycle helmets available to every teenager in the country for free and without their parents’ knowledge.  Let’s also say that these kids were “educated” that wearing helmets made them seem mature and responsible because it meant that they were practicing “safe motorcycle.” 

In that environment, it would be pure idiocy to think that the number of children willing to ride motorcycles is not going to dramatically increase or that the number killed on motorcycles is not going to skyrocket.

So, if the question is whether helmets offer some degree of protection to people who ride motorcycles, the answer is yes.  If the question is whether they should be pushed to children as part of a “motorcycle abstinence” or “safe motorcycle” message, the answer is absolutely not.  In fact, it would be criminal to do so.  But that is precisely how the condom/contraception message has been packaged to address teen sexuality, and the results have been as horrifying as they were predictable.

Some people argue that abstinence-only programs write off those children who don’t remain abstinent and places them at a higher risk for pregnancy, diseases, and abortion.  To some degree, that is a valid argument.  However, that doesn’t mean abstinence-only programs shouldn’t be adopted.

When laws requiring children to be strapped into child safety seats were being considered, it was already known that some children would die because they were in these seats.  For example, when cars accidentally go into a river or lake, some children will drown when their parents panic and can’t get them out of their car seats.  Other children will die in car fires because their parents were rendered unconscious during the wreck and not available to get them out of the car seat.  In some crashes, children who might have a better chance for survival if they were thrown from the cars in which they were riding, will instead die because they were strapped into a car seat.

The legislators who supported these child-restraint laws were aware of these risks.  But, in passing these laws, they were not saying, “We’re willing to write off those children who will die because they were in a car seat.”  Instead, they recognized that child safety seats save more lives than they take.  In a perfect world they would be able to pass a law to save every child who gets into a car wreck, but they don’t live in such a world so they made decisions that they believed would save the most lives possible.  

That dynamic also applies to abstinence-based sex education.  No reasonable person could believe that it will save every child or that some children might not actually be harmed by it.  Although the pill-pushers’ argument that teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we do is a lie, we cannot deny that some kids will have sex no matter what we do.  But we have to also accept the harsh reality that there is never going to be a perfect or painless solution to the massive destruction caused by Planned Parenthood’s brand of sex education.  Given that, we must look for the educational approach that will save the most children possible, and that is abstinence-only.  It is the only solution that is 100% effective every time it is used.   

One thing is for certain.  It is the very definition of stupidity and insanity to believe that contraception-based sex education is a solution to the social problems that were created by contraception-based sex education.

Don’t Feed the Hand that Bites You

Have you noticed how often pro-lifers, unknowingly, use rhetoric that reinforces pro-abortion positions.  For example, when we focus on the horrible and indefensible nature of late term abortion, we are suggesting that earlier abortions are less horrible and more defensible.  This creates an artificial distinction between one human being and another human being based on how old it is, how developed it is or how large it is.  That is not far from the pro-abortion position.  

Another example of this relates to the revelations that some hospitals are doing what are called “live birth abortions.”  This is where they induce a pregnant woman to give birth and then put the baby in a closet and let it die.  Horrified pro-lifers have responded by talking about the fact that these hospitals are “killing living babies!”

As understandable as this outrage is, such language undermines the pro-life position.  It suggests that there is a difference between killing someone inside the womb or outside.  The reality is, whether they are put in closets to die or ripped apart in the womb, all abortions happen on living babies and we must be careful not to ever say or do anything which suggests otherwise.

We also get tricked into supporting the abortion lobby’s agenda by the way we talk about teen pregnancy.  The abortion industry wants people to believe that when a teenage girl has a baby her life is over.  She is doomed to be single forever, poor as a church mouse, uneducated, and on welfare for the rest of her life.  Their goal is to convince people that abortion is her only hope.        

While it is true that no one believes 13-year-old children should be getting pregnant, it is not the end of the world.  In fact, many unmarried teenage girls have babies and go on to lead happy lives.  Moreover, among those who don’t, a significant number come from socio-economic environments where, by abortion industry standards, their chances for a “successful and productive” life are limited whether they have babies or not.  For these girls, the problem is not their baby but their environment.  When we ignore that and focus instead on the pregnancy, what we are really saying is that the baby is the problem.  Again, that’s the pro-abortion position.

It is also common for pro-lifers to attack abortion by saying we may have aborted the next Beethoven, or Mother Teresa, or the doctor who would have discovered a cure for cancer.  While this sentiment is understandable, it is inconsistent with the pro-life position.  The unborn child who might grow up to cure cancer has no more right to life than the unborn child who will spend his life on welfare and living under bridges.  The “aborted Beethoven” argument suggests that it is a bigger tragedy to kill Baby A than Baby B because Baby A is more valuable to society.  Clearly, that is not what the pro-lifer meant to say, but that is certainly what the listener might conclude.

The point is, always be aware that what you say may not be what your audience hears. 


Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics