Why the Hurry?

January 20, 2009, began with every American living under a system of government that was birthed in the blood of patriots.  But by the following morning, duly elected political anarchists had already begun the process of dismantling this 230 year-old form of government.  The world’s Marxists had always bragged that they would eventually conquer us without firing a shot and now it was happening. 


Today, it is not only the nature of this coup that stuns traditional Americans but the blinding speed at which it is occurring.  The American people are not just seeing things take place that they could not have imagined 50 years ago; they are seeing things take place that they could not have imagined one year ago.


The question is, what’s the rush?  Why is the Obama administration pushing this agenda at a rate that defies all political logic–even to the point of strong-arming their fellow Democrats into supporting wildly unpopular policies that could destroy their political futures?     


My suspicion is that the Obamanista’s scorched-earth approach is being driven by a dirty little secret they know about the coalition that gave them victory in 2008.  In a nutshell, I think they are deeply concerned about one of its key members. 


The conventional thinking is that this coalition was made up of African-Americans, white liberals and anti-Bush independents.  Another big-time player, of course, was the “Kool-Aid-drinkers” who were swept up in the feeding frenzy created by the media. 


When it comes to 2012, the Democrats are not worried about the African-American vote or the support of white liberals.  They are also confident that the mindless cult-like mentailty shown by the “Kool-Aid-drinkers” is not likely to be cured.  The one fly in the punchbowl is that, as the image of George Bush shrinks in the rearview mirror, Obama is losing the ability to use him as a bogyman.  This could cause Obama’s appeal among independents to plummet and, in fact, there is some evidence this is already happening. 


It is the responsibility of high-priced consultants and political gurus to keep all these factions on the reservation and maybe they can.  But even if they are able to do so, my theory is that the Obamanistas are aware that there is another member of their 2008 coalition which may not be onboard in 2012.  This group is what I call “Purgers.”


These are white voters who supported Barack Obama in order to rid the country of the stain of racism.  For this particular group, voting for Obama was not about politics; it was about purging themselves of the guilt of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and every other vestige of racial intolerance.  They thought that by electing a black man president, we could show that the days of racism were behind us.  It didn’t matter whether this was reality or not; what mattered was the perception that it was true.  I’m not convinced that these people really cared whether Obama won or not.  As long as they voted for him, they proved–at least to themselves–that they weren’t racist.  In effect, they replaced the old, “I’m not a racist, some of my best friends are black” mantra with, “I’m not a racist, I voted for Obama.”  Besides, Obama represented a “safe” vote because he was not perceived as some sort of “race-pimp” like a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton.   


In any event, an Obama sticker on the back bumper of a car was irrefutable proof that the driver was not a racist.  That may explain why even here in North Texas, which is not exactly a hotspot of Obama mania, you see far more Obama stickers still on cars than McCain stickers.


The irony is, at the moment these “Purgers” pulled the lever for Obama, they no longer needed him.  In their minds, whatever degree of personal guilt they felt evaporated.  However, the point they were trying to make by voting for Obama, does not require them to vote for him twice.  This means that in 2012, the Democrats will have to keep these voters in the coalition through policy.  The problem is, Obama has already been fully exposed as a hard-line leftist which is a position shared by very few Americans, including Purgers.  The other problem is that, since most modern presidential elections are won and lost on razor sharp margins, even a relatively small defection in Purgers could decimate Obama’s re-election chances. 


This phenomenon is probably keeping the Democrats awake at night.  It is also causing the Obamanistas to operate on the assumption that they will only have four years to implement their Marxist agenda.  This means that, given the scale of their plans, they’ve got to act fast and often.  To use a football analogy, they don’t have time to establish a running game; they’ve got to throw the ball deep on every play.  And that is exactly what they are doing.

The Ghost of Reno Rides Again

With the killing of America’s most notorious abortionist, George Tiller, you can be assured that the abortion lobby and their media flunkeys are, once again, hyperventilating over the opportunity that has fallen into their laps.  As they have done in the past, they now get to project this image of poor hapless abortion clinic workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire every morning just to get from their car to the death camp door. 


As the curtain rises on this little dog and pony show, let’s make it our job to see that the audience keeps at least one foot in reality.  We need to be pointing out that, when the Department of Justice or the FBI publish studies on workplace violence, the rate of violence at abortion clinics is so statistically insignificant that it doesn’t make it onto the final charts.  In fact, even if the statistics are limited to only include violence against health care professionals, abortionists do not show up on the radar screen. 


To see how overblown this issue has been, consider just the two years during which the most violence against abortion providers took place.  Of the eight total murders that have occurred at America’s abortion mills during the past 36 years, five were in 1993 and 1994 alone.  But according to government statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, during those same two years there were 2,154 other people killed in work-related homicides in the United States including seven school teachers, four members of the clergy, 10 lawyers, nine newspaper vendors, seven writers, six realtors, 22 waiters or waitresses, four groundskeepers, five architects, 40 garage or service station attendants, 23 auto mechanics, 21 janitors, 10 hairdressers, four carpenters, and six farmers. 


In other words, during the worst period of “pro-life violence” in American history, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job than abortion clinic workers and abortionists combined.  And remember, the five abortion clinic killings during 1993 and 1994 account for all but three of the killings that have happened in the history of the pro-life struggle.


Compared to the thousands of taxi drivers, convenience store employees, police officers, firefighters, and other workers who were killed during that time, it is obvious that all of this wailing and hand-wringing about violence against abortion providers is complete nonsense.  This is confirmed by the reality that the media is only able to make such a big deal about “pro-life violence” because it is so rare.  If it were even remotely common, they could not give it so much press.  Also lost in this discussion is the fact that if abortion clinic shootings, assaults, bombings, arson, and other acts of violence were anywhere near as common as the abortion lobby claims, every abortion mill in the country would have to shut down because there would not be an insurance company on the planet that would sell them coverage. 


Cutting to the chase, any objective analysis of this issue shows that the level of violence committed by people opposed to abortion has been grotesquely exaggerated and that the pro-life movement is, by far, the most peaceful socio-political movement of its size and tenure in American history.  To see the truth of that, all you have to do is study the other causes which are most similar: the anti-slavery, civil rights, and labor struggles.  It is not opinion but provable fact that, in those movements, there have been many times during which more violence was committed in a single day than has taken place in the entire 36-year history of the pro-life movement.


Another thing that’s interesting to note is that not one of the murders of abortionists or abortion clinic employees occurred prior to the inauguration of Bill Clinton.  And the explanation for that is brutally simple.  


Immediately after taking office, Clinton and his Attorney General, Janet Reno, began paying off their campaign debts to the abortion lobby.  While Clinton got legislation passed to sweep the streets clean of peaceful non-violent picketers, Reno literally turned the Attorney General’s office and the FBI into a private police force for the abortion industry.  By the way, that analysis did not originate with me; it was given to me by an FBI agent who told me that he was sick and tired of being sent out to investigate “pro-life terrorists” only to find some 70-year-old nun in tennis shoes whose act of “terrorism” was praying the Rosary in front of some godless abortion mill.


When rumors about Reno’s witch-hunts first surfaced, she flatly denied that such a campaign even existed.  But documents were eventually uncovered that proved she was lying through her blood-stained teeth.  The project even had an official name.  It was called, VAAPCON and I know, first-hand, that it led to at least one pro-life organization having its mail illegally opened and its phones illegally tapped.  This happened despite the fact that this organization had no ties to even one single act of violence, had never endorsed violence and was not associated with one person who was accused of committing violence.  The reason I know this is because the organization I’m talking about is Life Dynamics.  And we were certainly not the only targets.  In the ensuing years, I have been told by other pro-life leaders that they too had the same experience. 


Given this environment, it is hardly surprising that less than three months after Clinton and Reno began cracking skulls, the first shooting occurred.  This is not to suggest that this atmosphere justified the violence.  But on the other hand, we cannot pretend that it occurred in a vacuum.  If a woman kills her abusive husband, even those who would argue that the abuse did not justify the killing would at least recognize that it may have been a motivating factor.  In this case, it would be illogical to ignore the fact that, before the Clinton/Reno inquisition began, not one abortion clinic employee or abortionist had ever been shot.


Now we fast-forward to 2009 and find the Obama administration, which mainly consists of has-beens and retreads from the Clinton administration, publicly labeling as terrorists anyone who thinks it is wrong to butcher unborn human beings by the millions.  Then a short time later, we have the first shooting of an abortionist since Bill and Hillary burglarized the White House on their way out of town. 

We Told You that Babies are to Blame

On Sunday, January 25th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the ABC News program, This Week, that the government’s economic stimulus package should include a healthy increase in spending for what she called “family planning.”  (If you didn’t already know, “family planning” is code for abortion.) 


Pelosi said that this would save state and federal governments the cost of having to pay for the health care and education of poor children.  Of course, it’s pretty hard to argue with that sort of logic.  After all, dead children are indeed less expensive than live children.  


In any event, Pelosi’s remarks came on the heels of Barak Obama signing an executive order allowing money taken out of the paychecks of American workers to be used for abortions – in foreign countries!  In other words, at the same time we’re being told that America doesn’t have enough money to take care of its own children, we’re also being told that we have enough to pay for the executions of other people’s children.  Meanwhile, as the economy spirals toward the ground, Planned Parenthood – America’s number one abortion profiteer – is getting about a million dollars a day in taxpayer funding and there are calls for that to be doubled. 


So let’s recap.  In last year’s presidential campaign, Obama labels babies a “punishment” and, now, one of his co-degenerates follows that up by saying that they contribute to our financial woes.  Isn’t it interesting that these people who claim overpopulation is the cause of economic ruin – and every other social problem known to man – never volunteer to give their own lives to address these issues?  No sir.  They only insist that others be killed for the greater good and the group they “choose” is the only one that can’t fight back.


How strange. 



The Triumph of Style Over Substance

When Bill Clinton was elected president, I made the argument that the problem wasn’t Bill Clinton but the millions of people who voted for him.  And the same thing is true about Barak Obama.  I can assure you that there have always been people who wanted to be president whose morals were no better than those of Clinton or Obama.  The difference was that, back when America was still a Christian nation, the voters had better morals than to knowingly elect these kind of people to public office.  That’s because we were able to assume that there was a connection between what people claimed to believe and how they conducted themselves.  For example, in those days when someone said they were a Christian, that meant something.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case and the abortion issue provides a perfect example of this phenomenon.

All across America, there are those who claim that it is possible for them to be pro-choice – or vote for a supporter of legalized abortion – without abandoning their Christian principles.  They get away with this despite the fact that, from a theological standpoint, what they are saying is clearly demonstrable hogwash.

Two fundamental doctrines of Christianity are that God is the author of life and that He is incapable of making mistakes.   Obviously, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from those concepts is that when life exists in the womb it is God’s will that it be there.  Since the obvious goal of abortion is to deny that will, support for its legality is, by definition, incompatible with Christianity.

The fact is, when someone claims to be pro-choice they are asserting three things.  The first is that life is not a right inherited from God but a privilege bestowed by human beings who can withhold it if they “choose” to do so.  The second is that God is neutral on whether a child He created is brutally torn limb from limb.  The third is that it is possible to reject the innocent new lives that God creates without rejecting God Himself.  From a Christian perspective, all three of these views are absurd.

In the final analysis, Christians cannot be pro-choice about the intentional destruction of innocent human life any more than they can be pro-choice about rape, robbery, slavery, incest, child abuse, etc.

A couple of years ago, I saw something that demonstrated just how far we’ve taken this idea that someone’s behavior is unrelated to their Christianity.  In a documentary on cable about the exploding pornography business in America, there was an interview with some sleaze ball from California who is generally acknowledged to be America’s Porn King.  Within the industry, his company is known for churning out an almost unbelievable volume of the raunchiest material imaginable.  And understand, we’re not talking about videos of naked people, we’re talking about videos of people doing things so revolting that most of the pubic could not even imagine that they are actually legal.

Not surprisingly, the underlying theme of every video is the submission, exploitation and intentional degradation of women.  It is hard to imagine the volume of drugs that this industry has to pour down the throats of its “actresses” in order to get them to participate in this kind of garbage, but I would not be surprised if it rivaled the GNP of some small countries.

In any event, one could not help but notice that, during his interview, the Porn King was wearing a necklace with a small gold cross on it.  The documentary also featured a clip from one of his videos in which one of the several women writhing around on screen was wearing a cross around her neck as well.

When the pornographer and his young porn star were asked how they could reconcile this apparent inconsistency, both said that their religious beliefs and their chosen professions were two separate issues and that being in hardcore porn does not mean you can’t also be a good Christian.  In their world, the most fundamental symbol of Christianity – the cross – no longer represents a belief system or a lifestyle or a commitment to right over wrong. It’s just a fashion statement.

The regrettable thing is, this same attitude has become almost universally adopted by the contemporary American church.  It is now in such an advanced state of decay that anytime someone dares to suggest that certain lifestyles and behaviors are incompatible  with the claim of being a Christian, they are attacked for being dogmatic and judgmental.  Like the society at large, the church has chosen to become so open-minded that its brains fell out.

Well, there are times when someone has to say what has to be said and Tuesday’s stomach churning inauguration makes this just such a time.  I know that a lot of fine upstanding church-goers will be angry when they hear me say this, but the fact is that people who claim to be Christians while helping to put a man like Barak Obama in the Oval Office – or while supporting the election of any other “pro-choice” politician – are no different than the Porn King with a cross dangling from his neck.

A Little Mutual Back Scratching

Regarding Rick Warren’s decision to give the prayer at Barack Obama’s inauguration, assume for a moment that we had just elected a man to be president who, during the campaign, spoke to a rally of the Ku Klux Klan – all the while reassuring us how important his Christian faith is to him.  Let’s also assume that, during this rally, he told the assembled cone heads that he thinks America should return to the times when only white male landowners were allowed to vote.


The question is, could anyone in America be stupid enough to think that Rick Warren would give the invocation for this guy’s inauguration?  Do they think we’d be hearing all this warm-fuzzy rhetoric about “coming together” and “setting aside our differences” or any of the other touchy-feely emotions we now find so trendy?  Believe me, anyone who thinks that would happen has lost contact with the mother ship. 


I suggest that we take off the rose-colored glasses for a moment.  The cold fact is that this sorry situation is nothing more than an arranged marriage motivated by politics and ambition. 


On one hand, Obama needs someone who can give him cover with the Christian community.  His goal is to hide from them the fact that he is a heretic and moral degenerate.  He chose Warren for this job because he knows that (a) Warren has “street cred” within the targeted demographic group and (b) the vast majority of the people in this particular group are too naïve to see that they are being played.  He also knows that, as pro-lifers go, Warren is “safe” because he has shown that–regardless of what he says about abortion–it is not an issue he cares much about and it is certainly not one for which he will fight.  In the same way some people used to say,” I’m not a racist, one of my best friends is black,” Obama can now say, “I’m not a baby-killer, one of my best friends is pro-life.”  


Meanwhile, Rick Warren’s willingness to become Obama’s token pro-lifer is part of an extended job interview.  He knows that Billy Graham is nearing the end of his life and that the job of “America’s Preacher and Spiritual Guru to the White House” is about to be available.  He also knows that, in order to ascend into this role, he will have to throw the unborn under the bus.  After all, he’s watched Graham do it for the last 35 years.  It’s called “selling out” and for those who covet a seat at the tables of power, more often than not it’s just the cost of doing business.  Such is the nature of political life in a nation that no longer places any value on principles and statesmanship.   


Now, for those of you who will inevitably accuse me of being unfairly cynical here, let me suggest that January 20th will tell the tale.  If I am wrong about Rick Warren, then he will use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pray for mercy for the unborn and ask God to soften Obama’s heart toward them.  While he’s at it, he will also call America to repentance and beg God’s forgiveness for the 50 million defenseless children we have already slaughtered.    


Anyone taking bets? 

An Inning is Not a Game

The question is: can a baseball team outscore its opponent in a particular inning but then lose the game?  The answer is obvious.  Not only is this possible but, during baseball season, it literally happens every day.


Whenever a team gives up a big inning, there is a good way to tell what their chances are for coming back.  After they finally get the other team out, watch how the players walk off the field.  Some will shuffle back to the dugout with their heads hanging down and a look on their faces like someone just shot their dog.  You can stick those guys with a fork; they’re done.  But others will run to the dugout with the look of a tiger that’s ready to eat.  They are still in the hunt.                


There is no denying that, on November 4th, we gave up the big inning.  America’s death merchants and godless Marxists scored some runs by electing Barak Obama.  But on the other hand, that’s all that happened.  They didn’t win the game.          


Fortunately, the pro-life movement seems to be handling this situation far better than it did in 1992.  I have been legitimately impressed with how our people have responded to Obama’s election compared to the way they responded to the election of Bill Clinton. I can tell you that in the weeks following the 1992 debacle, our phones lit up with despondent pro-lifers who were absolutely convinced that all was lost.  Of course, after a while, they slowly started coming in off the ledges and, once a little more time had passed, they got back to work. 


The interesting thing is, this time around our people are not being driven by despair as much as anger.  Since the election, I have not received one call from someone whimpering about the outcome.  Every single person I’ve talked to has either wanted to know what they could do to help or asked how they could better support the efforts of Life Dynamics.  Not only that, but every other national pro-life leader I’ve talked to has said exactly the same thing.  The pro-lifers are ready to fight.     


Several things are at play here.  First, in the 1990s we proved that we could take the best that the abortion lobby could dish out.  Now, having survived Slick Willie and “Waco” Janet we do not feel as threatened by Obama.     


Second, I sense that the pro-life movement is more mature, and perhaps even more resolved, than it was in 1992.  It appears that we have fewer people who want to whine and more who want to win. 


Third, more pro-lifers are now aware of the fact that in order to win this battle in the political arena we must first win it in the streets.  The good news is that we are winning it in the streets and we’ve been doing so for a long time.  And any way you look at it, Barak Obama can’t do anything more to stop that than Bill Clinton could.  Abortion mills continue to close, the public is becoming increasingly pro-life and the largest increase in pro-life sentiment is in America’s young people.  Today, even some pro-aborts are openly lamenting that their movement is aging rapidly while ours is getting younger.        


Now, back to the business at hand.  I have recently been telling you to be looking for news about an exciting new project we’ve been working on for almost three years.  I still can’t give you details other than to say that it is scheduled to be launched in February and, when it hits, it is going to revolutionize our ability to reach the minority community.  So stay tuned; the pro-life movement is about to change forever.

Obamanistas Storm the Winter Palace

Last night, the American people made history.  Next January, Barack Obama will be sworn-in as the first African-American President of the United States.  And from a purely racial perspective, that’s a good thing.  Although this election will not heal all of our nation’s racial wounds, it at least signals that the wounds don’t have to be permanent. 

Unfortunately, the voters also made another kind of history.  

During the cold war, the communists always claimed that we were foolish to worry about them trying to conquer us militarily.  They said there was no need for that because they had the intent and the patience to take us over through an internal revolution.  The conquest of America was not to be accomplished with bullets but with ballots.

We should have listened.  But we didn’t, and soon the most powerful political office in the world will be handed over to an avowed socialist.  This morning, in some fetid corner of hell, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Joe Stalin are toasting each other.

Although the polls should have prepared us for this, it is still hard to imagine how a nation founded by statesmen like Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton could decay into one run by socialist whores like Obama, Pelosi and Reid.  But that’s what we’ve come to.

For my brothers and sisters in the pro-life movement, I would like to offer a little perspective on this situation.  Before you decide to take a bath with your toaster, remember that God is still in control.  He is not holed-up in some obscure section of heaven pacing back and forth and wringing His hands desperately trying to figure out what His next move should be.  We’re the only ones doing that. 

Be assured that I am not trying to downplay the significance of what just happened.  Besides being a Marxist, Barack Obama is the most rabidly pro-abortion, morally defective and completely unqualified person to ever be given the keys to the Oval Office.  This man is thoroughly evil and I have little doubt that we are likely entering into the most dangerous period in the history of our country.  On the 20th of January, 2009, the fox will not be guarding the henhouse – he will be inside the henhouse.   

Having said that, we need to recall that we’ve been through something similar to this before.  When Slick Willie Clinton and his charming little bride took over, the wailing and gnashing of teeth that ensued from the pro-life community would have frightened the sandals off of anyone in the Old Testament.  But eventually, we got up off the canvas and went back to work.  The result was that, in the following eight years, more abortion clinics closed than at any other time in the history of our movement and the abortion rate plummeted. 

The fact is, the Clintons could not beat us even when they turned the United States Department of Justice into a private police force for the abortion industry – and Barack Obama is not going to beat us now.  We should also acknowledge the possibility that, had McCain won, large segments of the pro-life movement would have gone into hibernation.  After all, we’ve done it before.  But since McCain didn’t win, none of us are sitting back and relying on him to do our work.

So let me tell you what’s going to happen now.

Even on this dark and sickening morning, you and I are going to walk onto the battlefield and fight.  Our mission will not be to merely defeat our enemies, but to drive them into the cold hard ground.  We will settle for nothing less than total victory because that’s the only way the killing will stop.  And if we don’t win today, we are going to return to the battlefield tomorrow with that same attitude and that same resolve.  And we will continue to return every day until God either calls us home or the killing ends. 

Look, we all know that the pro-life movement has its warts.  It is not uncommon for us to do really stupid things and we are always fighting with each other.  But for all we do wrong, there are two things you never have to doubt.  First, we are on the right side of the battle and, second, we will never surrender.  We survived the Billary Clinton juggernaut because we prayed like everything depended on God and fought like everything depended on us.  We will now survive Comrade BO for the same reason.

Are there danger signs?  You bet.  Do we need to be concerned about the Supreme Court, the Freedom of Choice Act and socialized medicine paying for abortions?  Absolutely.  Did our task just get harder?  No doubt about it.  But the only thing that really matters, and the one thing we must never forget, is that when God told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against us, He didn’t say anything about it being easy.  He was simply promising us the victory if we were willing to fight for it. 

So now we go forward in that spirit, always mindful that this was never a war between the pro-choice forces and us.  From the first killing, it has been a war between the pro-choice forces and the unborn.  You and I are just soldiers who volunteered to fight on the side of the babies.  We didn’t start this war, it doesn’t belong to us, and we won’t end it.  If you understand that, and if you understand that God is the only General of the Army in which we serve, then you have no reason to be discouraged.

Today, over 3,000 helpless American babies are lined-up for execution and more than 3,000 are scheduled to be killed every day in the future.  When we signed-up for this fight, what we were saying is that those babies could count on us.  Well, last night that commitment was challenged.  To meet it, we will have to quit whining about the election, do our duty and put our trust in God.  You and I are not children and we are not fragile.  We don’t need self-pity and we don’t need hand-holding.  What we need right now, is to stand up and tell Barack Obama – in a clear and defiant voice – the same thing Winston Churchill once told another morally-bankrupt despot: You do your worst and we’ll do our best.

QUESTION: What’s the difference between Bigfoot and legitimate journalism?

Of course, the answer is that Bigfoot might actually exist. 


This presidential election is proving to the public something those of us in the pro-life movement have known for years.  In a nutshell, the American media is a joke. 


My experience has been that modern “journalism” is completely dominated by three types of people.  By far, the largest group is made up of those who are simply not very bright.  Close behind that group are those who are abysmally lazy.  (And, yes, there is a considerable number who are members of both of these first two groups.) 


The final, and most dangerous, group consists of people with a Marxist / Atheist political agenda who manipulate the reporting of world events in order to further their cause.  I honestly believe that they are the smallest group but, regrettably, they have the most influence because they tend to be neither as stupid nor as lazy as their colleagues. 


The nomination of Sarah Palin for VP has exposed this third group better than any election before and, in the last few days, we have been given yet another textbook example of that reality.       


Joe “Empty Suit” Biden comes out and says, “Part of what a leader does is to instill confidence and demonstrate that he or she knows what they’re talking about.”


Then, seconds later, with all the unearned arrogance for which he is so well-known, he gives an example of that principle by stating that President Roosevelt went on television following the stock market crash to reassure the country that all would be well.  The only problem is, Roosevelt was not President when the stock market crashed and there was no television for him to go on even if he had been!  


Needless to say, not even Janet Jackson ever had a malfunction like that.


In any event, there are two things we now know for certain.  First, the fact that Biden has always been a pompous buffoon has not changed.  Second, the media’s relative silence on this episode continues to expose their bias, hypocrisy and incompetence.  Be assured that if Sarah Palin had made this exact same statement – or anything else as remotely moronic – a video of it would be on every television set in America four times an hour from now until the election.  And any man, woman or child whose IQ is at least a double digit knows that is true, whether they will admit it or not.

The fact is, Barak Obama has created a “Cult of Personality” with no substance of any kind behind it and the Godless-Left – including those who are ubiquitous throughout the American media – continue to writhe and slobber at his feet.  Meanwhile, ol’ Joe Biden happily plays the role of Grinning Idiot just so BO will take him along for the ride.

Miscellaneous Ramblings

(1) The Palin Selection


In a word, STUNNING!  I have never been a big fan of John McCain but, in my view, this was a Grand-Slam Homerun.  Her selection electrified the Christian Right and its timing was brilliant – the day after the coronation of The Grand Obama.  Just as the media was warming up to spend the next few days writhing and slobbering at the feet of their hero, Sarah Barracuda sucked all the air out of the room.


(2) Breathtaking Hypocrisy


Immediately after she was nominated, the Democrats jumped on the question of whether Palin was really qualified to be President of the United States.  In the kindest way possible, of course, they reminded us that McCain is over 70 and – well – anything could happen.  Now, in all fairness, I think it is appropriate to see this as a legitimate issue to raise.  After all, her credentials for the job are not that much better than The Grand Obama’s which, as we all know, are pretty close to zero. 


Interestingly, the Democrats have also been comparing Palin to Dan Quayle who they also savaged for being inexperienced.  What they are leaving out is that, by any yardstick, Quayle was eminently more qualified to be Vice President than BO is to be President.  He had served far more time in the Senate than Obama and had authored significant and important pieces of legislation.  Meanwhile, BO has been all but invisible during his short tenure in the Senate.  The fact is, until the Dems became terrified that Hillary Clinton was actually going to be their nominee, no one had ever heard of Barak Obama.  Also, before these people start getting too jacked up over their inane comparisons between Palin and Quayle, perhaps they should remember that QUAYLE WON!    


(3) Who Knew?


As we have heard ad-nauseam, the Democratic Party’s theme for this year’s campaign is “Change.”  Naturally, they have not been very forthcoming with specifics so we remain a little unclear what we will be changing from and what we will be changing to.  I guess that those of us in The Great Unwashed Masses will have to just trust that these details will be revealed to us when we need to know them.  In any event, isn’t it interesting that one of these innovative fresh-thinking “Agents of Change” has been lurking in the United States Senate for the last 35 years.  And all this time, we thought ol’ Joe Biden was nothing more than what he appears: an empty suit. 


(4) It’s a Strange Change


If BO’s idea of change is to team up with some pompous career politician who once plagiarized a speech from a self-avowed British Marxist, Neal Kinnock, he shouldn’t be too surprised in November if the American people tell him to, “Just Keep The Change.”  


(5) Maybe He Just Didn’t Want to Hire a Food-Taster  


Is it possible that what kept BO from putting Hillary on the ticket was a keen eye for self-preservation?  Maybe he noticed that when people get between the Clintons and whatever it is the Clintons want, they develop this mysterious habit of ending up dead.  It seems that the old saying, “Heavy lies the head that wears the crown” takes on a whole new importance when the one who wants your crown is a Billory. 


(6) Palin’s Pregnant Daughter


Within days after Palin was picked, some on the Godless Left began claiming that her four-month old child was actually her grandchild – the baby of her 17-year-old daughter.  Their “evidence” for this is a collection of photos taken of Palin during her pregnancy in which she appeared too thin to be pregnant.  Apparently, these degenerates are not aware that every woman is different and they don’t all look the same before they are pregnant, while they are pregnant, or after they are pregnant.     


Anyway, a couple of days later this nonsense was exposed as a lie when Palin announced that her daughter is actually five-months pregnant right now.  Although most people are bright enough to recognize that this girl couldn’t have given birth four months ago and be five months pregnant today, some of these nitwits continue to say that Palin’s baby is actually her grandchild!  Apparently, they believe that pregnancies can overlap.      


Of course, others on the Godless Left have now launched into a vicious diatribe about how the pregnancy of Palin’s unmarried teenage daughter exposes the hypocrisy of the Christian Right of which Palin, they say, is a member.  Naturally, they are conveniently ignoring the fact that the very foundation of our belief system is that we are all fallible.  In fact, if that were not the case there would be no need for Christ and no such thing as Christianity.  When Palin stated that her daughter was going to keep her baby and marry the baby’s father, that was the proper Christian response to the situation.  The Palin family obviously understands that the sin was the premarital sexual relationship and not the baby.  Contrast this to Barak Obama’s recent statement that, if one of his daughters became pregnant, he would not want her “punished” with a baby.  That alone should serve as irrefutable proof to every Christian that this man is a heretic and that his claim to be a Christian is a complete fraud. 


By the way, it has also been revealed that McCain knew of this situation when he picked Palin – more evidence of what a courageous act this was.             


(7) Qualifications Part 2


As we look at whether someone is qualified for any public office, it is important to understand that there are all sorts of qualifications to consider.  Perhaps the best example of this is Richard Nixon.  Surely, no one could argue that this man was not qualified or experienced enough to be President.  In fact, an argument could be made that he may have been one of the most qualified people who ever ran.  But despite that, he was a disaster for the country because he lacked character and a sense of morality.   


The problem is that, in America, we tend to give credibility to those who say that morality is not an issue in public service.  But in doing so, we ignore the fact that every decision a public official makes includes a moral component.  When deciding whether to spend money we don’t have or can’t repay, that is a moral issue as well as a financial one.  When considering the use of force in another country, that is a moral issue and not just a military one.  And the list goes on and on. 


So is Sarah Palin qualified to be President if something happens to McCain?  The answer is that, in the conventional sense, she probably isn’t.  By the way, that puts her in the same position as Barak Obama.  Like it or not, only a fool would suggest that Obama, McCain, Biden or Palin are even close to being the most qualified people in the United States to be President.  But when the issues are character and morality, only the most hardcore Democrat could see people like Barak Obama and Joseph Biden as qualified. 


This subject reminds me of the most profound analysis of American politics I ever heard.  It was William F. Buckley’s statement that he would rather see the country run by the first 535 people in the Boston phone book than by the 535 members of Congress.  The late Mr. Buckley clearly understood that the traditional yardsticks for determining whether someone is “qualified” for a particular job in politics haven’t served us all that well.


(8) Earth to Mr. Savage.  Earth to Mr. Savage.  Come in Mr. Savage.


I often find myself agreeing with the substance, if not the style, of what talk-show host, Michael Savage, has to say.  Recently, however, he said something that is completely asinine. 


He spent the first part of his show, correctly, identifying dangerous situations that are cropping up around the world, including the United States, because of what he calls, “Islamic-Facism.”  Next up on the program, he discussed his view of why McCain passed over Mitt Romney for VP.  It was because, according to Mr. Savage, evangelicals would not have been supportive of a Mormon.  And that may be true.  Then Savage angrily opined that a person’s religion should have no bearing on whether they are qualified to serve in public office.


Let’s get real here.  The only reason the “Islamic-Facist” behave as they do is because of their religious beliefs.  I am not suggesting that Mormons are comparable to these people or that they should not be allowed to hold public office, but I am saying that someone’s religious beliefs are not irrelevant or even unimportant.


The reality is that, contrary to popular misconception, we now live in a theocracy.  It was not meant to be that way, but over the years that is what it has become.  Secular Humanism is a religion, its priests are the nine judges on the Supreme Court, and the citizens of the United States are required to live by its dogma.  So the question is not whether we want to have politicians inflicting their religious views on us, the question is what particular religious views we prefer to be inflicted.  In such an environment, to suggest that a candidate’s religious views are irrelevant is nuts.

The Cost of Free Milk

We’ve all heard it said that a farmer doesn’t buy the cow if he’s getting the milk for free.  Generally, parents have used this pearl of folksy wisdom in an effort to dissuade their daughters from having sex before marriage.  But this philosophy has relevance in other areas of life as well.  For example: the upcoming presidential election.  


This November, the pro-life movement will once again be in the position of not having a candidate.  Every four years, we put ourselves in this situation because we have made it clear to the Republican Party that, when push comes to shove, we are always willing to settle for the “lesser-of-evils” candidate.  In other words, we’ve let them know that they don’t have to marry us in order to get our milk.  We might preach sexual abstinence to our children, but everyone knows that we don’t have the discipline to practice political abstinence ourselves.  


Of course, this leaves the GOP with a wide-open playing field.  After all, they know that the Democrats can be relied upon to nominate some complete moral degenerate, thus guaranteeing that the Republican candidate is going to be seen as the lesser-of-evils.


And so it goes in 2008.  On one side is an amoral Marxist and religious heretic who openly describes children conceived in unplanned pregnancies as a “punishment.”  In other words, a garden-variety Democratic presidential candidate.  On the other side is a man who claims to be pro-life, while making it clear that it is not a core-value for him and publicly stating that the lives of the unborn are not deserving of constitutional protection.  In other words, a garden-variety Republican presidential candidate.   


Perhaps the time has come to say that what the American people really need is four years of Barak Obama as President, with Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the House and Harry Reid as the leader of the Senate.  Maybe that would wake them up to the fact that the real threat to our future is not the potential for financial bankruptcy but our rapidly accelerating march toward moral bankruptcy. 


However, there are also those who think that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis-of-evil would irrevocably devastate the country – and it certainly could.  For those people, supporting McCain is simply a matter of “defensive voting.”


So what’s it going to be?  Do we sit back and teach the country a lesson or do we deliver another pail of milk?  And I’ll be the first to admit that it’s a tough call.  The only thing I know for sure is that when a nation is legally executing over 3000 helpless children a day, God is not going to judge it over tax policies and unemployment rates.  In the final analysis, we may be able to find many perfectly legitimate reasons to delay that message for another four years.  But only a fool believes that it is one that will wait forever.

Seven Random Musings

Musing 1

So now, we are being asked to buy Barack Obama’s loopy explanation that he had no idea his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, sometimes threw racist hate-filled tantrums in the pulpit.  Of course, Obama is lying through his teeth and even his most ardent supporters would have to be dumb as a box of rocks not to see it. 

But let’s play stupid for a moment and say that what he is claiming is true.  That means he is telling us that he is so oblivious to the world around him that he can be a member of a church for 20 years and not know about the bizarre antics of the preacher.  But at the same time, he wants us to believe that he is bright enough to run the most complex nation on earth with the world’s largest economy and most powerful military.

This guy needs to pick a lie and stick to it.   

Unfortunately, I think these kind of distractions are causing us to miss the most important issue of all.  There are many people who are certain that Obama is some sort of undercover Muslim and many more who think that Wright is a racist who hates America.  While those things may or may not be true, what is undeniably true is that both claim to be Christians when, in fact, they are both heretics.  And that, my friends, it is the real problem.   

Musing 2

Congress recently hauled in the leaders of the nation’s largest oil companies to discuss the skyrocketing price of gasoline.  You could characterize this hearing as a collection of dimwits who couldn’t run a lemonade stand “investigating” the practices of some of the world’s largest financial institutions. 

Interestingly, while these buffoons were grandstanding in front of the cameras about “obscene” profits in the oil industry, nothing was said about the fact that on every gallon of gas sold in the United States, the government makes several times what the oil companies make.  In other words, if “Big Oil” agreed to sell gasoline at no profit, that would not save nearly as much money as it would if Congress reduced the “obscene” taxes on gasoline.  Of course, we all know that’s not happening.  Getting between Congress and a taxpayer’s wallet is like getting between a hog and the slop bucket.  

But what I do want to know is this: when is Congress going to hold hearings on why Planned Parenthood – a multi-national non-profit corporation with about a billion dollars in assets – made more that 60 million dollars profit last year and is still getting over 300 million dollars a year in taxpayer money?  You can bet the family farm that Planned Parenthood’s return-on-investment percentage is significantly higher than Exxon’s and Mobil’s combined.  So why isn’t Congress getting their panties in a wad over those obscene profits?              

Musing 3 

Former Democratic vice-presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, is being rotated over a low flame for saying that Barack Obama would not be where he is if he was not black.  The interesting thing is, no one came forward to argue whether she was right or not.  The statement alone was enough to brand her a racist, set-off the obligatory media floggings, and force her out of Hillary Clinton’s staff.   

There is a beautiful irony in this.  The intellectual disease of political correctness that currently infects American culture, was invented and unleashed by godless liberals exactly like Ferraro.  For years, these people have painted this image of conservatives and the Christian Right as neo-Nazis and the Republican convention as little more than a four-day Klan rally.  And now, like Frankenstein’s monster, this political correctness has turned on one of its masters.

Ferraro’s response was to look wounded on national television and moan about being unjustifiably castigated.  In the future, perhaps she should remember the saying, “If you’re going to swim with sharks, don’t bleed.”  Apparently, that advice is sometimes even appropriate for those who released the sharks in the first place.

As for me, all I can say about the Ferraro incident is, “Ya’ gotta’ love it!” 

Musing 4

Hillary (Rambo) Clinton continues to whine that the media is so infatuated with Obama that it is not treating her fairly.  For example, she claims that Obama’s “Pastor Disaster” got less media scrutiny than did her preposterous yarn about having to dodge a hail of sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. 

My advice, Rambo, is to get over yourself.  No two people in American history have benefited more from the corruption and bias of the media than you and Slick Willy.  Sure, the media may be off the reservation right now, but we all know that if you figure out some way to steal the nomination, they’ll come slinking back.   

Musing 5

Speaking of Hillary, did you catch her ad against Obama in which she asked voters who they would want answering the White House phone at three in the morning if an international crisis had occurred?  It was pretty effective in drawing attention to Obama’s inexperience, but if she gets the nomination I think it could backfire in the general election.  First, if experience is the yardstick, wouldn’t McCain blow Hillary out of the water?  And second, the American people surely realize that if Hillary’s on the White House phone at 3am, it probably won’t be because of some international meltdown.  The most likely scenario will be that she is calling the local topless bars trying to get the name of the pole-dancer who took Bill home with her.        

Musing 6

Returning to Obama for a moment, he recently stated that if one of his teenage daughters got pregnant he would not want them to be “punished” with a child.  He even equated an unplanned child to a sexually transmitted disease.  The pro-life movement’s angry response to this is certainly understandable given that anyone with even a shred of human decency would be outraged at classifying children as “punishment.”  

This episode exemplifies the fact that Barack Obama is evil to his core and, as time goes on, the public is going to become increasingly aware of it.  However, it also brings up what I have always believed is a dirty little secret of contemporary American society. 

We long ago reached the point where science and technology made it impossible to deny the humanity of the unborn.  So the question becomes, why didn’t that settle the abortion debate once and for all? 

There are many explanations for that and one of them is as simple as it is ugly.  As we all know, whenever we start calling for a ban on abortion, a significant number of people will immediately want to talk about the need for exceptions in cases like rape, incest, fetal deformity, etcetera.  But this is a smokescreen that conceals the real agenda.  Sadly, because of the general moral collapse of our country, the most powerful interest in America today is self-interest.  And what the public really wants is for any legal prohibitions against abortion to have a “My Daughter” exception.  They just don’t have the guts to admit it so they camouflage it with phony compassion. 

Musing 7

Has anyone else noticed that (a) many, if not most, of the people being touted as John McCain’s potential running mate are pro-aborts and (b) McCain is saying nothing about what he would do to stop the slaughter of the unborn?   

I have said it before and I will say it again.  America’s politicians are never going to take the pro-life movement seriously until we set some new ground rules.  First, we have to make it clear to these people that we are going to be single-issue voters with a litmus test.  Second, they must also be told that we have no interest in what they “feel” or “think” or “believe” about abortion.  The only thing we want to know is what they intend to do to stop it.  And we are not going to settle for some meaningless political gibberish about “reducing the need for abortion” or “lowering the unwanted pregnancy rate” or “creating a culture of life,” etcetera.  That tap-dance has gone on long enough.

The time has come for us to understand that even the noblest rhetoric is no help for the unborn child whose skull is locked in the abortionist’s forceps.  That will only stop when we demand that pro-life votes must be earned through pro-life actions.  Until the unborn are safe, sending that message is the duty of every pro-lifer.

More Entries

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics