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.

A Few Random Thoughts

1) Remember the Mission

For many years now, I’ve been saying that the pro-life movement must not judge success on its ability or inability to win over the pro-choice mob and that our goal is not to convert these people but to stop them.  Of course, for an equal number of years there have been some in the pro-life community who challenge that position. 

Fortunately, over time I have seen the percentage of those who disagree with me decrease significantly.  It seems that our movement is, indeed, becoming less naïve.  But such naïveté has certainly not been eradicated altogether.  It still exists, and may always exist, because pro-lifers tend to be decent well-meaning people who sincerely want to assume the best about others.  And while that is certainly a laudable trait, there are two fundamental truths about the abortion struggle that make this attitude unrealistic. 

First, the pro-life position is one based exclusively on a moral principle.  We do not oppose the slaughter of the unborn because it is impractical or because it lacks utilitarian advantages.  We fight against abortion because it is so abysmally wrong that it cannot be either defended or ignored.     

Second, those who most vehemently defend abortion are not just misguided or uninformed people with whom we have a philosophical disagreement.  Instead, the “pro-choice” community is dominated by amoral and self-absorbed people who find concepts like “right and wrong” to be quaint and irrelevant. 

Combining these two realities means that our enemies are effectively immune to any argument against the legalization of abortion.  With very few exceptions, they are not winnable and, therefore, we must never evaluate our effectiveness on our ability or inability to convert them.

Now, I can appreciate why some would disagree with me on this.  I have no doubt that they are much nicer people than me and, like I said a moment ago, they want to believe the best about everyone – even the Choice Mafia.  If that describes you, all I ask is that you look for examples in world history where barbarians stopped what they were doing because they came to see that it was wrong.  What you will discover is that inertia is a fundamental property of barbarism.  It never stops on its own. 

2) The Bastardization of Compassion

I have often written about the fact that, in America today, over 90 percent of children suspected of having Down syndrome are executed in the womb.  I use the word “suspected” because a mistaken diagnosis in this area is not at all unheard of.

Generally, the apologists for this particular form of savagery try to rationalize it by claiming that we do it “to protect these babies against a lifetime of suffering.”  Those people are lying through their teeth.  They know good and well that our society does not slaughter babies with Down syndrome in order to “put them out of their misery;” we do it to put them out of our misery.  Whether we want to admit it or not, these babies are killed because we find them inconvenient, unsightly, more expensive to care for than they are worth and missing many of the “normal” human qualities we so admire in ourselves. 

That is the inevitable nature of a culture that places a utilitarian rather than an intrinsic value on human life.  It is a system in which those with power decide who gets to live and on what justification those who fail to qualify may be killed.  Today, this philosophy defines how we approach war, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and, if socialized medicine is in our future, it will define how we ration healthcare. 

The fact is, in the “Brave New World” that America has become over the last forty years or so, the right-to-life must be earned.  And for anyone we label “less than perfect,” earning that right becomes more difficult every day.  In fact, just considering the Down syndrome issue alone, the inevitable question is why we should limit our compassion to the unborn.  After all, if it is compassionate to kill those who, if allowed to be born, may suffer a life of misery, surely it would be even more compassionate to kill those who are already suffering such a life. 

At this moment in history, we need to understand that what I’m suggesting here may be neither farfetched nor far away.  That is why you and I must fight these people with every ounce of strength we can summon and we must do so until we draw the last breath God gives us.

3) A Frightening Time

It is undeniable that we've had defective people occupy the Oval Office before now and we don't have to look very far back in history to find them.  Nixon was a paranoid crook whose view that the law didn't apply in his case brought the country to the edge of a Constitutional collapse.  Carter was a buffoon who is proving to be as squalid a nuisance as an ex-president as he was as a sitting president.  Clinton was a moral degenerate whose abysmal behavior exposed the entire system of American government to derision.  And Bush 43 may have been well-intentioned but my feeling is that history is going to judge him far closer to Jimmy Carter than George Washington.            

However, none of these people were nearly as dangerous or destructive as the guy who sits in that office today.  During the 2008 presidential campaign, I said that the Obama phenomenon is less a political movement than a cult.  Now the evidence to support that view is all around us and growing like a slimy green mold.  Compared to the Obaministas, the Stepford Wives look like a herd of anarchists.

The frightening thing is, not since the Nixon administration have we seen anything like the way dissent is not tolerated.  In both cases, loyalty could accurately be defined as blind devotion and unquestioned obedience as well as a willingness to be oblivious to whatever the leader does.  The difference is that, in those days, if you criticized Tricky Dick you ended up on some sort of “Enemies List” and got your taxes audited.  Today, anyone who says anything negative about The Grand Obama will instantly be labeled either a racist or an Uncle Tom–depending on the malefactor's skin color.
 
And that brings me to my latest question: is the International Olympic Committee going to be labeled “racists” now that they’ve rejected Obama’s pitch to bring the Olympics to Chicago?  Or is that tactic only used in the case of Americans who dissent from the party line?

4) Caught Lying

First, the Godless Left says that abortion will not be covered under ObamaCare.  But then, they fight any effort to include language that specifically excludes abortion.  With a straight face, they will say it is an unnecessary waste of effort to add this one tiny paragraph to the bill – even though it is already slated to be over a thousand pages long.  In other words, they are lying through their teeth.  If abortion is not going to be covered, a one paragraph addition to confirm it would do no harm.  Their refusal to allow this provision in the legislation is irrefutable proof that they intend to take money out of the paychecks of every American to buy abortions for other people.        

What we need to be reminding them of is that the word “healthcare” relates to the prevention and/or treatment of illness, injury and disease and that pregnancy is none of those.  In addition, according to the abortion industry’s own statistics, almost every elective abortion in America is done for a non-medical reason on a healthy baby and a healthy mother whose pregnancy poses no threat to either her life or physical well-being.  What all this means is that, by definition, ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE!

Amazingly, some Obamanistas are arguing that ObamaCare will reduce the number of abortions even if it pays for them.  Of course, many of those making this claim are the same grinning idiots who tell the lie that you can be a Christian and pro-life even while working to put a pro-abortion heretic like Obama into the White House.  

They are also ignoring that long-established principle of politics which says, “When you want less of something you tax it and when you want more of something you subsidize it.”  I have never heard of an exception to this and, in the unlikely case that such exceptions actually exist, there is no evidence that abortion is among them.  So the real question here is: just how pathetically stupid would you have to be to conclude that making abortions “free” will cause the abortion rate to drop?

Let me tell you the bottom line here.  Any form of socialized medicine will eventually, if not immediately, cover elective abortion.  Even if abortion is specifically excluded, the Obamanistas are banking that a future court decision will rule that this prohibition is unconstitutional.  And I think they are correct in making that assumption.  I can also assure you that, if national healthcare is passed, it won’t be long before a challenge to any abortion exemption is headed toward the Supreme Court.  For that reason, until we return legal protection to the unborn, we cannot afford to have ANY legislation passed that would create a national healthcare system.

Don’t Get Drunk on Tea

I want to sound a word of caution about this "Tea Party" and "Town Hall Meeting" phenomenon taking place around the country. 

From some of the rhetoric associated with these events, it would be easy to assume that social issues like abortion are an important factor behind them.  Regrettably, however, that assumption is incorrect.  Yes, there are many people involved with these events who are staunchly pro-life and it is not uncommon to see a strong pro-life presence at them.  But make no mistake about it, the driving force here is money.  If these people were to suddenly conclude that Obama's monetary policies are going to make our economy sing, the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meeting would quickly fade into history.  

Having said that, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that what these people are doing is either unimportant or wrong.  It is neither.  The fact is, the America we all grew up in is being destroyed by corrupt politicians in Washington, DC, who are nothing less than traitors.  Right before our eyes, our nation is being transformed from a capitalist nation devoted to freedom and equality of opportunity into one that will require us to grovel at the feet of godless Marxism.  And while this march toward an amoral collectivist society did not begin with the Obama administration, only an idiot could not have noticed the pace has accelerated exponentially since January. 

It is now clear that, unless we reverse course, we could all wake up in two or three years living in an America we no longer recognize.  If it comes to that, we will be in a frightening place where the love of our country has become secondary to the fear of our government.  And the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings are a needed and appropriate response to this crisis.  They provide a venue where these pompous elitists in Congress and the White House can be reminded that we are not their serfs, but that they are our hired hands.

The point is, even as we acknowledge that the Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings are a good thing, we should not forget that they were born out of the fear of a financial collapse of our country and not its moral and cultural collapse.  The reality is, their leaders never organized similar events to help the unborn and, if the time ever comes that they no longer perceive Obama to be a threat to their wallets, they'll go home, drop the unborn in the grease, and we will never hear from them again.

Of Diapers and Deficits

Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for the government's economic stimulus package to include a healthy increase in spending for what she called “family planning.”  (If you didn't already know, “family planning” is generally 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 less expensive to care for 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, the Obama administration’s position is that we are running out of money to take care of our own children but we have enough to pay for the executions of other people's children.  Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood (America's number one abortion profiteer) continues to be given approximately one million dollars a day in taxpayer funding and there are calls within our government for that amount 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 is claiming that babies contribute to our country’s financial woes.  In this environment, it is probably no coincidence that the abortion lobby is ratcheting up its rhetoric that the faltering economy is a justification for abortion.  The sense of evil is palpable when you hear them almost gleefully predict that the abortion rate is going to increase as women rely on it to compensate for bad economic conditions.  

 

But the question is, are babies really to blame for our economic collapse?  And the answer is that they are.

 

Let me explain.  It has long been known that as consumers approach retirement they spend less money.  The two areas where this is felt the most is in the sales of cars and houses – the two industries that form the backbone of the American economy.  The good news has always been that, as older people began to buy less they were replaced by younger consumers who bought more.  It was a cycle that was repeated from one generation to the next.  But here’s the problem we face today.  The American baby-boomer is the wealthiest generation of people in the history of the world and they spent money like there was no tomorrow.  In that process, they created an economy that was (a) the envy of the world and (b) completely dependant on that level of spending in order to survive. 

 

While doing this, however, they aborted more than one-fourth of the next generation of consumers.  This guaranteed that, once the baby-boomers started reaching retirement, the spending frenzy of the last forty years would be over.  And now, that is precisely what has happened.  In 2008, baby-boomers began reaching retirement age, the sales of cars and houses plummeted and that put the entire economy into a tailspin.  Further, we are just at the very beginning of this phenomenon.  By any realistic measure, there is a financial tsunami rolling toward the United States that will make our current environment seem like “the good ole’ days.”  From now until 2026, baby-boomers are going to reach retirement age at the rate of 10,000 a day!  And even if we learn how to live with less consumer spending, the effect of that is going to bankrupt our social services infrastructure. 

 

One obvious place you can see this is in the area of Social Security.  In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore bored us to near suicide with his incessant droning about the need for a "lock box" to protect the funds being held by the Social Security system.  Of course, he was lying.  He knew good and well that there is no need for such a lock box because Congress was running a Ponzi scheme with Social Security and there is no money left to lock up.  Over the years, Congress grabbed it, left an IOU in its place, and then squandered it to buy votes.  While Bernie Madoff rightly deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, the only differences between Madoff and Congress are that his crimes were on a far smaller scale and he got caught.    

 

Now we’ve reached the day of reckoning.  The money to fulfill the government’s social obligations to the baby-boomers is long-gone.  The result is that we will soon be at a point where younger taxpayers will be forced to send in boxcars full of their money to pay for the services that were promised to them.  The fact that this money has already been collected once is irrelevant.  The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the baby boomers are going to be taxed into oblivion replacing money that was stolen by Congress.  What most Americans don’t realize is that this problem has been made exponentially worse by abortion.

 

The designers of Social Security based it on an assumption of an ever-growing, or at least stabile, workforce.  They could not have foreseen that America would one day legalize the wholesale slaughter of its own children.  But on January 22, 1973, that’s what happened.  The result has been that, over the last 36 years, over 25 percent of the taxpayers needed to replace the money baby-boomers paid into the system were executed.  To appreciate the impact of this, consider that since abortion has been legal, birth rates in the United States have often been below replacement levels.  In fact, if one removes immigration from the census figures, America's population has been at best flat or, by most reliable estimates, in decline.  For the Social Security system, that has been a disaster waiting to happen and the wait ended in 2008.  Like nations all over the world, America is beginning to discover why the shrinking populations they wanted are a barometer of economic disaster.

 

This reality is also going to have a devastating effect on the Medicare and Medicaid systems.  I think this is probably the main reason why there is this sudden panic in Congress to implement socialized medicine.  They know that the money to take care of the baby-boomers was stolen.  After all, they are the ones who stole it.  But they certainly can’t afford for the voters to find that out, and a perfect way to make sure they don’t is to dump the boomers into to a government run universal healthcare system. 

 

Another way abortion affects the economy is seen in the immigration issue.  Today, there is a vigorous national debate about whether illegal immigrants are only taking jobs American workers don't want anyway.  While that may or may not be true, what is undeniable is that illegal immigrants are replacing the millions of workers who were killed through abortion.  The problem is, beyond the financial burdens that illegal immigration imposes on the U.S. economy, it also contributes to the diminished demand for American consumer goods – including cars and houses.  That’s because a very high percentage of America’s illegal immigrants live in poverty conditions so they can send money back to their families in Mexico.  Over the years, this amount has grown to the point that it is now consistently one of the largest sources of income for the entire Mexican economy.  And any way you look at it, this is money that, without abortion, would have been earned by Americans and spent in America.  But those Americans don’t exist so it ends up being earned by Mexicans and spent in Mexico. 

 

Sadly, this has also eliminated any chance for the Mexican economy to become as strong as it should be.  It is time for someone to point out that there is no reason for Mexico to be a poor country.  It has a wealth of natural resources, a good climate and a population made up of decent hard-working people.  However, it is not possible for any nation to have a vibrant economy while sending millions of its youngest and most productive workers out of the country.

 

In the final analysis, this is a system that costs the American taxpayer trillions of dollars, threatens the stability of the U.S. economy, keeps Mexico poor, and cynically exploits the illegal immigrant.  But it will continue because every member of Congress knows – whether they have the guts to admit it or not – that immigration is the only way to replace the workers who have been aborted.

 

So yes, babies are indeed the cause of our economic collapse.  Not for the reasons the Obamas and Pelosis of the world have you think, but because America has murdered the babies who would have supported our economy and financed our social service obligations.  In 1973, our nation bought the lie that we could savagely execute millions of innocent human beings without consequence and, now, the chickens are coming home to roost. 

 

Having said that, however, we should never reduce the abortion debate to one solely based on economics.  Even if this holocaust had lined our streets in gold, it could still never be justified.  It would serve us well to understand that the fallout from the legalization of abortion will ultimately go far beyond financial considerations.  Let's not forget that a generation that killed its own children whenever it found them inconvenient, unhealthy or expensive is now entering a stage of life when it will soon become inconvenient, unhealthy and expensive.  The survivors of a generation whose fate was in our hands, will soon have our fate in theirs.  Given that sobering reality, maybe our only hope is that God was just kidding when He said that man reaps what he sows.  But the early indicators are that He wasn’t.

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.


Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics