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.


“Let's set aside our differences and look for common ground.

By working together to reduce the need for abortion,

we could lower the number of abortions.”


It sounds so reasonable, so mature, and so appealing.  After all, we're human – we want to like and be liked.  We want to sit in the stands at a baseball game and enjoy the company of the guy next to us even when he's rooting for the other team.  It's an aspect of human nature by which we are all often seduced and seldom harmed. 


But when you take up the cause of the unborn, you soon learn that the normal rules of human engagement do not apply.  You come to realize that it is a world where the failure to question motives can be disastrous.  And nothing is a better example of that than the suggestion that we look for common ground with those who defend abortion.


First, the abortion lobby knows that they do not have to convince the public that their position is morally superior to ours.  It doesn't even have to be seen as morally equal.  All that's necessary is that it is considered morally defensible.  The problem is, when the public sees us working in concert with them to find common ground, we help create that perception. We signal that even we believe their position has some moral validity.  It is no different than if the Jewish people would have agreed to look for common ground with the Nazis while the ovens at Auschwitz were burning day and night.  That would have simply given credibility to the Nazi position. 


Second, it is no secret that the American people are increasingly uncomfortable about abortion.  What the offer to search for common ground does for the abortion lobby is to connect them with the public by creating the illusion that even they don't like abortion and are working to reduce its numbers.  It's a cynical public relations scheme that only works if we go along with it.  It is also based on a lie.  To think that the abortion lobby wants to reduce the number of abortions is like saying that McDonalds wants to reduce the number of hamburgers being sold.  In short, it's roughly equivalent to believing in the tooth fairy.   


Third, our enemies have always understood that their future is far more secure when the public perception is that abortions are done out of “need” rather than the simple desire not to be pregnant.  But the truth is that even studies conducted by hardcore abortion advocates prove that almost every abortion in America is done for non-medical reasons and involves a healthy baby who was not conceived by rape or incest and a healthy woman whose pregnancy does not threaten either her life or health.  In other words, there are virtually no abortions done in America that the public would conclude are being done out of need. 


However, every time we take the common ground bait, we help the abortion lobby conceal that fact from the American people.  It is simple deductive reasoning that, by agreeing to join them in this search for ways to reduce the need for abortion, we are, by definition, conceding that there is sometimes a need for abortion.  After all, rational people don't go looking for ways to reduce the need for something unless they have concluded that such a need exists.  So when we agree to these common ground efforts, we help to cover up the fact that, even if every abortion being done out of need was eliminated, any reduction in the number of abortions would be too small to measure. 


Another flaw in the common ground approach is that it always requires us to accept the fundamental premise of the abortion lobby.  In all such discussions, the opening statement is something like, “We have all agreed to set aside any discussion about whether abortion should be legal and concentrate on finding ways to reduce the need for abortions.” 


But if the real goal of these discussions is to find common ground, it would be equally legitimate to say, “Everyone has agreed that abortion should be made illegal, so our goal today is to look for ways to reduce the incidence of illegal abortions once that happens.”  Of course, that statement would never be made because the abortion lobby would never agree to discuss their position on their opponent's terms.  We seem to be the only ones who fall for that little trick.


Now, if you think I'm too cynical about all this, I have a suggestion.  The next time you are approached about participating in such an event, point out that the most effective way to lower America's astronomical abortion rate would be to concentrate on the areas where big numbers are.  That means the focus should be on finding ways to reduce the number of abortions that are being done because the woman just doesn't want to be pregnant or because she is using abortion as back-up birth control.  Also propose that the discussion looks for ways to reduce the number of multiple abortions.  That’s legitimate since, by abortion industry figures, about 40 percent of all abortions are done on women who have had at least one prior abortion – and often several.          


Of course, there are other “big number” areas we could look at, but it really doesn't matter since we all know that such a proposal would be dead on arrival.  Common ground discussions simply don't happen unless they are conducted by abortion lobby rules.  That's because the actual goal is not to reduce the number of abortions but to neutralize the pro-life movement and divert attention away from the core issue. 


Let’s also remember that, when we drink the common ground Kool Aid, we are signaling that we think we have lost this battle.  That is particularly obvious in light of the fact that these discussions are always held on our enemy's terms.  In most venues, that would be translated as meaning “unconditional surrender.” 


But the fact is that we are winning; we just need to act like it.  As long as the killing continues, we have no common ground with these people nor should we seek any.  Remember, prior to World War II we had long discussions with the Japanese trying to avert the war.  But at Pearl Harbor, the talking ended.  Our leaders understood that when people are threatening to do evil, discussions with them are a reasonable thing.  But once they have begun doing that evil, there is nothing more to talk about.  From that moment on, the only goal is to stop them. 


That must always be our goal as well.  When those who slaughter the unborn – and those who defend it – come to us with big toothy grins and an invitation to some Common Ground Beer Summit, we would be wise to remember that when a wolf shows his teeth, he isn't smiling.


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.

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.

Some Reason in this Season of Treason

For those of us in the pro-life movement, the current presidential campaign has produced more high-profile traitors and defectors than any other election in history.  In just two of several recent examples, we saw Pat Robertson and Rick Warren abandon both their principles and the unborn children they’ve always claimed to care so much about. 

Now comes Frank Schaeffer, the son of one of the pro-life movements giants, the late Francis Schaeffer.  A few days ago, he announced his undying support for the rabidly pro-abortion and most liberal member of the United States Senate, Barack Hussein Obama.  He says he reached this decision after concluding that the November election should not be about policy but character.  Apparently, Schaeffer got his definition of the word “character” from the same dictionary that caused Bill Clinton to be a little befuddled on what the meaning of the word “is” is. 

In any event, like Robertson and Warren before him, Schaffer attempted to rationalize his betrayal with explanations that ranged from the laughable to the bizarre.  But in the end, his tortured logic was transparent and could not erase the fact that he is a traitor.  You can also be fairly certain that he will not be the last one of these guys to go over the hill before this election cycle is over.  As this phenomenon continues to play out, I think it is important for us to keep two things in mind.

On the philosophical front, while most people in the pro-life movement accurately characterize the effort to save the unborn as a war, we have generally misunderstood its nature.  We see it as a war between the pro-aborts and us, despite the fact that we are not the targets of the enemy’s aggression.  After all, our lives and futures are not on the line and, even if we were to lose, the practical ramifications for us would be virtually zero. 

It is time for us to understand that this is not a war between the pro-aborts and us.  It is a war between the pro-aborts and the unborn.  We are simply soldiers who volunteered to fight on the side of those children.  So when the Robertsons and Warrens and Schaeffers of the world run for the tall grass, they are not abandoning us; they are selling-out the babies.  The only offense they are committing against us is disloyalty. 

That leads me to a more pragmatic point I want to make. 

There is no denying that these betrayals are painful, and they are even more so when committed by people we trusted and loved and whose dedication to the cause we never questioned.  But we should also understand that their acts of treason serve an invaluable purpose. 

As we move closer to victory, our enemies are going to become even more vicious and more brutal and more vitriolic than ever.  In fact, we can already see that happening.  To win in that environment, we have to know who can be trusted and who can’t.  And that is precisely what we are being shown.  Perhaps we need to open our eyes to the possibility that God is preparing the pro-life movement for the final push to victory.  I am convinced that, after the November elections, our movement may indeed be smaller than it is now, but far stronger.  I can assure you that, no matter who wins, if the end result is that we traded quantity for quality, we will be in a much better position to fight the battles that are in front of us.

The choice before us today is whether we are going to be winners or whiners.  We can flap our arms and wring our hands and face the wailing wall over these turncoats, or we can see them for exactly what they are: people who are more to be pitied than scorned.  Pat Robertson is a perfect example of what I’m saying.  Throw out all the rhetoric he used to justify his backing of Rudy Giuliani, we all know he did it because he thought Giuliani was going to win and Robertson wanted “a seat at the table” after the election.  His defenders can sugar coat it all they want, but the bottom line is that Pat Robertson traded his principles for political power and ended up with neither. 

Such is the risk of being a traitor.  It is their fate to discover that disloyalty is seldom rewarded and never respected.  The problem is, they never seem to understand that until it’s too late.        

Ending the World’s Longest Engagement

If the last 35 years have proven nothing else, they have at least shown that, in the American political arena, the pro-life movement is the cheapest date in town.  

The system works something like this.  Along about election time, we can always expect a call from the nation's political hacks - mostly Republicans.  They don't really like being seen in public with us, but if they want to get elected they don't have a choice.  So they kiss us on the ear and whisper how much they love us.  But, they promise nothing and we demand nothing because we know our place.  So once our election-cycle dream date is over, we go back and dutifully wait by the phone until they want us again.  And as this pathetic act is repeated every couple of years, the killing continues.

I think the time has come for the pro-life movement to set some new ground rules.  We can start by making it clear that the days are over when politicians can finesse the abortion issue by giving us their philosophical position.  Our new instruction to these people should be that we have no interest in what they “feel” or “think” or “believe” about abortion.  None.  All we want to know is (a) do they believe that an unborn child is a “person” from the moment of fertilization and, thus, entitled to have his or her life protected by the Constitution and (b) if so, what is their plan to return legal protection to every one of these children?”

That’s it!  That’s all we want to hear.  Anyone who answers the first question with anything other than an unapologetic and unqualified “Yes” is not pro-life.  As for the second question, we instantly dismiss any response that mentions “reducing the need for abortion” or “lowering the unwanted pregnancy rate” or “creating a culture of life,” etcetera.  We bought that sort of mealy-mouthed political gibberish in the past, but no more. 

If you think I am off base for saying that a politician's “position” on abortion is meaningless, consider this.  If you went into a state penitentiary and interviewed every serial rapists incarcerated there, you would find that a significant number would tell you that rape is wrong and that they understood so when they did it.  We also know that a certain percentage of these same people would rape again if released.  So obviously, what they “believe” about rape does not affect their actions and, in the end, that’s all that matters to the victims.        

That same dynamic applies here.  What politicians “believe” about abortion doesn't help the unborn until it becomes action.  Look at it this way, if the economy was in the tank, we would not allow a politician to simply tell us that he “believes” in a sound economy.  We'd demand to know what his plan is for fixing it.  It’s time we insisted on at least that much for the unborn. 

The next thing we need to do is inform these politicians that we are going to be single issue voters.  Simply put, when a candidate is wrong on the slaughter of helpless children, his or her position on other issues is irrelevant.  For too long, the pro-life movement has bought the lie that we should not have litmus tests.  That is nonsense.  There are many perfectly legitimate litmus tests and anyone who claims not to have any is either lying or is devoid of personal convictions.      

Think about it.  A politician could be attractive, intelligent, experienced and have all the right answers to the important issues of the day, but if he was found to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan, that would certainly be a litmus test.  If it were discovered that a fully qualified politician had written a law review article saying women should not be allowed to vote, that too would be a litmus test.  You can also bet that if a politician said that the terrorists who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center had legitimate reasons for doing so, his or her position on other issues would be irrelevant.  Actually, if you really want to understand about litmus tests and single-issue voting, imagine that a politician admitted that his primary reason for seeking office was to raise taxes on every voter?  Do you honestly think this person could be “right enough” on every other issue to make up for that?      

The point is, if we are serious about protecting the unborn, this is the standard we must start demanding for the politicians we support.  And that is true even when the political office being sought is unrelated to abortion.  If we truly believe that abortion is the intentional execution of helpless children, we must also acknowledge that any politician who is pro-choice is not morally qualified to be dogcatcher.

Of Pro-Lifers and Faux-Lifers

The foundation of the pro-life position is that, from the moment of fertilization, a new human being exists and has the same right to life as a 5-year-old or a 50-year-old.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems plaguing the pro-life movement today is that so many of our people don't appear to actually believe that.  For me, this was reinforced at a speech I gave recently.  In the “meet and greet” session beforehand, someone came up to me and mentioned that he was a long-time pro-lifer but was working for one of the pro-choice candidates in the presidential race.  His rationale was that there are "other issues" we also need to be concerned about, issues like the economy and the war on terrorism.  He lamented that this had created a nasty and growing rift between himself and some of his fellow pro-lifers, not the least of which was his own wife.  His argument was that he was as pro-life as any of them and was being unfairly attacked despite having worked for years in the movement.   

I asked him if he truly understood what being pro-life means.  He acknowledged that it is the belief that the unborn has the same right to life as the born. So I asked him to imagine that, instead of the unborn, it was his life, or the lives of people he knew, or the lives of anonymous 5-year-olds that his candidate was saying it should be legal to snuff out.  If that were the case, would he still be saying that there are "other issues" we need to consider or does that standard only apply to the unborn?

Recognizing the trap he had set for himself, he never responded.  After making it clear that his mind had not changed, he angrily walked away.  Somehow, this man had convinced himself that helping to put a politician in office that would slaughter unborn children by the millions did not conflict with his claim to be pro-life.

I have often observed that the human brain is the only organism on earth that has the ability to deceive itself.  This guy is a living testament to that phenomenon.  The sad part is, I am seeing more and more evidence that he is not alone.  The problem seems to be that a significant number of the people in this country who claim to be pro-life are only pro-life in the theoretical sense.  As a practical matter, when economic agendas and self-interests collide with their pro-life principle, it's the pro-life principle they will abandon.

Each of us knows that there have always been internal disagreements within the pro-life movement and there always will be.  It is human nature.  Some of these conflicts have been petty and others have centered around matters of legitimate substance.  In either case, however, I think we would all like to see even those pro-lifers with whom we have differences as people of integrity and character.  But when someone says they are pro-life but could support a baby-killer for political office that person can no longer be viewed in that light.  What they have said is that, when push comes to shove, for the right 30 pieces of silver they will drop the unborn in the grease.

By definition, that makes them the same as the people they claim to oppose.  The abortion lobby is willing to butcher the unborn for personal, political and financial reasons, and the faux-lifers are willing to look the other way for personal, political and financial reasons.  It is a distinction without a difference.     

The bottom line is, for those of us who are committed to the pro-life cause, the fate of the unborn will never be merely “an” issue.  It is always “the” issue.  For that reason, a candidate's position on abortion is all we need to know and all that matters.  If a politician is wrong on that, he or she cannot be right enough on anything else to make up for it.  It also makes no difference whether or not the office being sought has any direct impact on abortion.  Those people who contend that it should be legal to execute helpless children are not morally qualified to serve in any public office.  And those who help put them there have no right to call themselves pro-life.

And the Beat Goes On

In Kansas, the political landscape continues to get more bizarre.  To bring you up to date, a few years back Attorney General, Phill Kline, announced an investigation into whether abortion clinics are in violation of the state’s child sexual abuse reporting laws and the state’s regulations involving late-term abortion.  In response, Kansas filled up with high-dollar legal talent from out-of-state pro-abortion groups and they brought with them the knowledge that whatever money is needed, is available.  Despite that, however, as the legal machinations ebbed to and fro, it was clear that things could go badly for them.                 

When Kline indicted notorious late-term abortionist, George “The Killer” Tiller, on 30 criminal charges, the district attorney in Sedgewick County, Nola Foulston, was able to pull a legal maneuver to get the charges dismissed.  As an outspoken proponent of legalized abortion and a personal friend of Tiller’s, Foulston was simply doing what any other corrupt political puppet of the abortion lobby would be expected to do.  But everyone knew that this “fix” was only temporary.  The charges could be refiled at any time and in a way that would be insulated from Foulston.  This meant that Tiller, not to mention his competitors at Planned Parenthood, were still in trouble.     

Cue Paul Morrison, the district attorney in Johnson County.  Bankrolled with hundreds-of-thousands of dollars from his good friend, George Tiller, Morrison ran against and defeated Klein for re-election.  Then, to no one’s surprise, he immediately fired the special prosecutor Kline had appointed to pursue the investigation of Tiller and Planned Parenthood. 

The message was clear: when the Kansas abortion mafia buys a politician, they expect results.  And the Foulston/Morrison gang did not disappoint.  But unfortunately for them, the matter did not end there.  Currently, a citizen-led grand jury has been seated to investigate the charges and that panel operates outside the influences of people like Nola  Foulston and Paul Morrison.  

Meanwhile, the story takes a new twist.  It seems that Morrison has been, shall we say, fishing off the company pier.  He has now been charged with sexual harassment stemming from an extramarital affair he admitted he had with one of his employees in the Johnson County district attorney’s office.  Linda Carter, the office’s director of administration, revealed extensive details about their two-year relationship that, as might be expected, are juicy enough to fire-up a Jerry Springer audience.  She also says that the affair continued after Morrison was elected Attorney General and that he pressured her to use her position in the D.A.’s office to influence pending litigation involving Phill Kline.  She refused.  Apparently, despite whatever personal warts she may have, Linda Carter is no Nola Foulston.

Like most Americans, I have some profound reservations about the broad definitions of sexual harassment used in our society today.  Many of them have been so preposterous that they cause people to see the entire issue of sexual harassment as nonsensical.  The effect of that has been to diminish the validity of claims made by people who truly are victims. 

Having said that, it appears that Ms. Carter may have initially resisted Morrison’s advances and only succumbed after repeated pressure.  If it turns out that she finally gave in simply because she thought a little roll in the hay might be fun, she has no claim to victim status.  However, if she gave in because she had a legitimate reason to believe that not doing so would affect her employment, then the relationship was less an affair than it was a capitulation.  Time will tell if that was the situation but, if it was, then Morrison is in over his head.  

It is also coming out that Morrison has a history of this sort of thing.  That, coupled with Carter’s claim that Morrison leaned on her to influence litigation involving Kline, raises two interesting issues.

First, this case puts those leftist groups who inevitably take the side of any woman who raises sexual harassment claims between a rock and a hard place.  Although this story has exploded across Kansas, these groups have remained uncharacteristically silent.  They have apparently figured out that it would be dicey for them to assert that Ms. Carter is telling the truth about the sexual harassment but lying when she says that her pro-choice harasser committed a crime to protect the abortion industry.  So their response has been to just punt and let Ms. Carter take her chances under the bus.   

Second, I have always speculated that the abortion industry keeps files on its high-profile customers–especially politicians–that could be used to “keep them in line” in the future.  If a customer is a publicly known woman, or says she is pregnant by a publicly known man, or is the daughter/wife/granddaughter of a public family, etcetera, evidence of an abortion would be good leverage to keep on hand.  Bill Clinton could be a perfect example of what I am talking about.  During his presidency, even his admirers complained that he was not always loyal to the people and special interest groups who helped put him in office.  The sole exception to this is the abortion lobby.  For eight years, this was the only constituency he never once double-crossed. 

Consider that fact within the context of Clinton’s history.  Gennifer Flowers always maintained that, in 1977, Clinton gave her $200 to have an abortion.  Clinton denied that the abortion occurred and, in fact, denied that he even had an affair with Flowers.  When that turned out to be a lie, it is certainly no stretch to then conclude that his denial of the abortion was also untrue.  Given what we now know about this guy, it is also no stretch to speculate that Flowers’ abortion was not the only one.  To the contrary, the smart money would be that his political career was salvaged more than once when one of his babies was snuffed-out at some abortion clinic. 

It is also perfectly reasonable to assume that (a) the files associated with whatever abortions Clinton may have been responsible for are sitting in the desk of a Washington, DC, abortion-industry lobbyist and (b) Slick Willy understood that any betrayal of their agenda by him could result in these files ending up on some reporter’s desk.

This same phenomenon may explain the abysmal level of corruption we’ve seen when it comes to George Tiller, Planned Parenthood and anyone else involved with the Kansas abortion lobby.  Simply put, their influence is far more broad and deep than could be reasonably expected in a middle-America state.  I guess you could say that when it comes to Kansas politicians, the abortion cartel knows where the skeletons are buried.  After all, they helped to bury them. 

Pro-Life: What Does it Mean?

Today, there seems to be a lot of debate about what it means when someone says they are pro-life.  This is especially true for politicians.  For clarity’s sake, let’s define the term.  The pro-life position is that a new human life is created at the moment of fertilization and is, thus, entitled to the same legal protections as any other human being.

Given that, some abortion positions are pretty cut and dried.  For example, someone who supports a universal human life amendment to the constitution is pro-life, while someone who supports the Roe vs. Wade decision is not. 

Then there is the person who says that they are personally opposed to abortion and would never participate in one, but pro-choice when it comes to legality.  As amazing as it may seem, I have actually heard pro-lifers describe people who say this as pro-life.

In reality, this is the most insidious and despicable of all positions on abortion.  After all, there is no reason to oppose abortion other than the belief that it takes the life of a living human being.  So what the “personally opposed” crowd is saying is, "I agree that abortion is the intentional killing of a baby, but if other people want to do it I support their legal right to do so and it’s not my place to interfere."  That is not a pro-life position.  It’s like someone in 1860 saying, “I am personally opposed to slavery and I would never own one, but if someone else wants to own a few that’s their business.”   

Another stance often mischaracterized as pro-life is the “pro-life with exceptions” position.  You’ll hear people say things like, “I am pro-life, but I think there should be an exception when the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest” or “I am pro-life, but abortion should be legal when the baby is handicapped.”

It is a complete abandonment of the pro-life principle to say it should be permissible to kill selected categories of children.  When someone says they are pro-life but that abortion should be allowed in some circumstances, the question is whether they would support killing a five-year-old in those same circumstances.  If not, then it is clear that they don’t see born and unborn children as morally equal.  In other words, they do not subscribe to the most fundamental tenet of the pro-life position.

In the grimy world of politics, a new position is emerging to test the boundaries of what it means to be pro-life.  We are now hearing presidential candidates say that they are pro-life but that each individual state should be allowed to set its own policies regarding abortion.  Of course, the problem with that thinking is that the right to life is specifically listed in the U.S. Constitution.  The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of his or her life without due process of law.  Even Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court justice who wrote Roe vs. Wade, said that if the personhood of the unborn was ever established the right to abortion evaporated. 

When a politician claims to be pro-life, he or she is asserting that the born and the unborn are both persons.  So the question becomes, how can they logically claim that only the born have a constitutional right to life?  And the answer is, they can’t. 

To understand how preposterous this is, imagine that a state legislature passed a law allowing parents of newborn children to take a few days to decide whether they are really prepared to start a family.  Under this new statute, if they decided they were not ready for this responsibility, they would be legally allowed to have a physician slit their child’s throat.  In that situation, how many of these “pro-life” politicians who are now saying that the federal government has no constitutional right to intervene on behalf of unborn children, would say that the federal government has no constitutional right to intervene on behalf of these born children?  Of course, the universal consensus would be that they not only have that right, they have the duty to do so.

The point is, when someone claims to be pro-life but says that abortion is a state matter, that is an unmistakable indicator that either (a) they do not truly believe that the born and unborn are both persons or (b) they are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution. 

It may also be indicative of something the pro-life movement has done.  For 35 years we have hammered away at legalized abortion when, technically speaking, abortion is not the root problem.  In reality, it is only a symptom.  The disease is the absence of legal protection for the unborn. 

After all, if a woman who is not pregnant wanted to submit to abortion, we might find it bizarre and we would probably question her sanity, but in the final analysis it would probably not concern us any more than it would if she were getting a tattoo or body piercing.

So the problem is not that women have abortions, but that children die.  And that only occurs because our nation took away their right to life.  So maybe we need to talk a little less about stopping abortion and a little more about returning legal protection to the unborn.  Perhaps then, all these people claiming to be pro-life would know what being pro-life actually means.

The Parade of Useful Idiots Begins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Entries

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics