“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.

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.

As they have done in the past, we are starting to see the abortion lobby use the bad economy to justify the slaughter of the unborn.  In this process, one of their favorite tactics is to suggest that pro-lifers should concentrate on helping people who are “already here.”

Of course, this ignores the fact that the unborn are “already here.”  After all, if that were not the case there would be nothing in a pregnant woman’s uterus to abort.  But we cannot allow mere facts like that to get in the way, so on a national news show the other night, there it was again.  A defender of the death culture saying that if those of us in the pro-life movement really cared about our fellow man, we would stop fretting over abortion and do something about homelessness, child abuse, hunger, global warming, health care and all the rest.  And naturally, the lunacy of this argument was completely lost on the dim-witted reporter who was conducting the interview.  In fact, I got the queasy feeling that it actually made sense to her.

But here’s my question.  There is an organization called The Innocence Project that represents prison inmates who claim they were falsely convicted.  It is a truly noble effort and there have been numerous instances in which they were able to prove that people have rotted in prisons for decades for crimes they did not commit.  In fact, there have even been cases where they proved the innocence of people who were sitting on death row awaiting execution. 

What I want to know is this: when these organizations are trying to save the lives of condemned prisoners who may be innocent, should they be told to butt out unless they are doing something about all of the world’s other social ills?  Think about it.  As moronic as that sounds, it is precisely what the pro-choice mob says about abortion.  Their position is that until those of us in the pro-life movement can provide solutions to all the problems that an unborn little girl might face in her life, then we have no right to keep them from killing her.  The frightening part of this is, there are people running loose in American society who are actually stupid enough to buy into this nonsense.

Look, the reality is that the abortion lobby has no interest in solving social problems.  For them, these issues are nothing more and nothing less than a diversion.  Since day one, they have known that abortion cannot defend abortion on its own merits because it has no merits.  So the core strategy behind every argument these people make – with no exceptions – has always been to deflect attention somewhere else.

In this case, the diversion just happens to be the cynical exploitation of unfortunate people in desperate situations.  It sounds kind of nasty, but such is life for those trying to defend a holocaust.

With the political season in full swing, the Choice Mafia is once again clamoring that the issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong but, “who decides – the woman or the state?” 

Have you ever noticed that anytime someone says right and wrong don’t matter, it always turns out that they want to do something that even they know is wrong?

In any event, my question is this: if these people think that legalized abortion is such a positive thing, why won’t they defend it on its own merits?  Why do they feel compelled to claim that its merits – or lack thereof – are irrelevant?

The answer is that abortion has no merits.  In fact, there is nothing appealing about it.  A mom climbs on a table and puts her feet in the stirrups.  Then, a medical-community washout with the morals of a sewer rat, roots around inside her body with sharp instruments and tears her child limb from limb.  If all goes well, the woman won’t end up in the emergency room or in an early grave.

Of course, when the dust has settled, whatever drove her to submit to this abortion in the first place is still a reality.  She is just as poor, or uneducated, or ill-housed, or abused as she was before.  The only significant difference in her life is that she is now the mother of a dead baby instead of a live one.  Call me stupid, but I find it hard to imagine that she is better off for that experience.

Obviously, it’s tough to make this scenario seem anything but ugly, which is precisely why our enemies try every trick in the book to avoid talking about it.  One thing is for sure.  If every voter spent just one day inside a typical abortion clinic, there would be no debate.  These death camps would be shut down instantly and the people who work in them dragged off in handcuffs and leg irons.

While we’re talking about this “right and wrong don’t matter” rhetoric, let’s also not forget that America has heard it before.  During the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1857, Douglas said that, while he was personally opposed to slavery, he would not legislate against it because it was up to the people to vote it up or down.  Lincoln countered with: “He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down.  When Judge Douglas says that whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”

What Lincoln was saying is that the government is not empowered to protect one individual’s right to inflict wrong on another, but to protect those who would be victimized from those who would victimize. 

So let’s cut to the chase here.  The reality is, the pro-choice mob has to say that the issue is not whether abortion is right or wrong because they know that neither they, nor anyone else, can defend the actual act of abortion.  They also understand that their very survival depends on them being able to keep the public from looking at the central question: is the unborn child a living human being?  If the answer to that is yes – and even the most outspoken defenders of legal abortion know that it is – then there is no debate about “who decides.”   Civilized societies simply don’t leave the decision about whether one human being can kill another one up to the one who wants to do the killing.

So does it matter whether abortion is right or wrong?  The better question is: what else could matter?  And if right and wrong do not matter in this case, why would they ever matter?

One of the pro-choice gang’s standard regurgitations is that women never take abortion lightly and only have them for the most agonizing and legitimate of reasons.  With pro-choice people it is not always easy to distinguish when they are lying from when they are simply misinformed.  But such is not the case here.  They are lying and several of their fellow travelers have admitted as much.     

In an interview published in the March 9, 1989, edition of the communist publication, Revolutionary Worker, Marilyn Buckham, who was the director of Buffalo GYN Womenservices Clinic, was asked about the reasons women have abortions.  In her answer, she stated, “Women don’t do this lightly.  I’m sick and tired of hearing this.  Ninety-eight percent of women do do it lightly in here…they think of abortion like brushing their dime teeth and that’s OK with me.”

The reality is, if you go to any abortion clinic waiting room in America you will certainly find women who are there for what they perceive to be difficult circumstances.  But make no mistake, you will also find many who are having their second, third or fourth abortion as well as those who are there for reasons that could never be legitimately described as serious.            

But going beyond that, a recent episode at one of our nation’s “most prestigious” universities has raised the question of whether women ever have abortions after getting pregnant on purpose.  In early April, a pro-choice student at Yale, Aliza Shvarts, claims that she artificially inseminated herself repeatedly during the previous year and then self-aborted using various chemicals and herbs.  This was all done as part of a school art project.  It seems that she had video taped herself sitting in a bathtub doing these abortions on herself, and her plan was to project this video onto a cube that had been covered with blood she had saved from these abortions. 

I will concede that my knowledge of art is not very sophisticated.  My main experience in this field was in junior high school when I drew my own state inspection sticker for my Cushman scooter.  Evidently, it was not very good as a local police officer picked up on the forgery right away.  Needless to say, I was lucky to escape with only a ticket. 

But even though my credentials in this area are suspect, I still have to say that Aliza’s art sounds like it would make those Elvis on velvet things you see sold at abandoned gas stations seem like the Mona Lisa.  I’m also more than a little concerned that we will one day discover that this fiasco was paid for with tax dollars through a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

In any event, the university tried to extricate itself from this public relations nightmare by informing Shvarts that she would have to publicly state that her story was a hoax before they would allow it to be displayed.  They wanted her to say that the blood was not from abortions but from her menstrual flow.  Apparently, menstrual blood paintings are an approved form of artistic expression at Yale.  (Wouldn’t you love to read the minutes of the meeting where this conclusion was reached.)

Naturally, like any other proud but misunderstood artist, Shvarts refused to compromise and stuck to her story.  She did, however, enter something different in the art show so she would not fail the class.  I don’t know what form the replacement “art” took and I’m pretty sure that I don’t want to know.  Let’s just say that Aliza and I probably have different tastes.  

Surprisingly, the idea that women would abort intentional pregnancies is not a new one.  In the August 18, 1991, edition of the Austin American Statesman, rock singer Sinead O’Connor said she wrote the song My Special Child just two weeks after having an abortion.  She also said that, “It was a planned pregnancy, which I was very happy about.  I was completely in love with the father of the child ... But things didn’t work out between us, and we were both unhappy.  It was too much for him to be able to handle.  He was young and I was on tour, and I was feeling ill all the time because I was pregnant, and I was feeling so awful and I made the decision that it would be better for everybody if I had the abortion.’

About the same time, Oprah Winfrey had a show about women who get pregnant as a ploy to trap men into marriage.  One of the guests stated, with no hesitancy or sense of remorse, that when her attempt at this did not work as planned, she had an abortion. 

There were also revelations about the Olympic committee that oversees enforcement of drug policies discovering a trick some female athletes were using to circumvent the organization’s prohibition against blood doping.  These women were found to be intentionally getting pregnant prior to competition to increase the amount of oxygen in their bodies in order to heighten their performance.  After the competition was over, they would abort.  Olympic officials eventually determined that not only was this happening, it was not an uncommon practice among teams from certain countries.

So how common is it for women to abort an intended pregnancy?  Obviously, no one knows.  But we do know that it is common for women to abort intentional pregnancies when their baby turns out to be handicapped.  For example, in America today, over 90% of Down Syndrome babies are executed before birth and it would be illogical to think that those were all unplanned pregnancies.  On a personal level, through the Life Dynamics abortion malpractice campaign, I have spoken with many abortion-injured women over the years who told me that they had intentionally become pregnant but aborted when something changed in their lives.  One case I remember involved a woman who was forced to have a hysterectomy because of her injury.  She said that she had been trying to get pregnant for two years but aborted after being offered a promotion at work.

From a pro-life perspective, I think we need to keep all of this in context.  In a certain sense, the fact that a woman would have an abortion for frivolous reasons or to end a pregnancy she intentionally sought, is irrelevant.  Some justifications might make us more angry than others, but for the child that’s killed the reasons don’t matter.  The Down Syndrome child carried by a forty-year-old welfare recipient who got pregnant on purpose by a man whose name she doesn’t even remember, is no less valuable than any other child.      

In the final analysis, if the excuses for abortion don’t matter to the children being killed, they shouldn’t matter to us.  Our job is to protect every child in every circumstance.  And that must always be our focus.  

Musing 1

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

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

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

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

Musing 2

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

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

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

Musing 3 

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

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

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

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

Musing 4

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

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

Musing 5

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

Musing 6

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

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

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

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

Musing 7

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

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

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

Now that the political season is back at our throats, we are again hearing the abortion lobby trot out its usual collection of distortions, half-truths and outright lies.  Of course, one of their favorites is the old line that since women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says, we have to protect them against dangerous back-alley abortions.

This assumes that the legal abortions women are getting right now are safe, but we'll let that fairy tail slide for the moment.  We'll also ignore the fact that, if abortion were outlawed today and illegal abortionists started springing up next week, every one of them would be someone who is pro-choice.  In fact, every woman who was ever killed or maimed during an abortion was killed or maimed by someone who was pro-choice.  That means the obvious solution to the back-alley abortion problem is for the pro-choice mob not to do them.  But like I said, we'll ignore that for now. 

What I'm wondering about is this.  If the motivation for legalized abortion really is to save the lives of women, why aren't the people who make that argument also calling for the repeal of laws against rape?  After all, it is not uncommon for a woman to be killed by a rapist so she can't identify him to the authorities.  Legalizing rape would save those women by taking away the rapists' motivation for killing them. 

Legalization could also result in the establishment of rape clinics where rapists could take their victims instead of dragging them into dangerous back-allies.  These facilities could offer clean rooms, condom machines, emergency contraception and perhaps even doctors on staff in case the rapist injures his victim.  We could also issue licenses to rapists requiring them to undergo monthly testing for AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. 

Remember, the pro-choice argument is that women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says, and that keeping abortion legal will make sure they occur in a clean and safe environment.  Well, those dynamics also apply to rape.  We know that keeping rape illegal has not stopped women from being raped, so why not try to create a more “enlightened” nation where rape is safe, legal and rare?

And by the way, as ridiculous as this suggestion is, if our goal is saving women's lives, it makes as much sense as legalized abortion.

A woman recently came onto the ProLifeAmerica.com Forum to talk about the grief she was experiencing over the miscarriage of her unborn child.  The response she received was very revealing.  Immediately, she was verbally savaged by two of the pro-choice hyenas who routinely patrol the forum.  One of them ridiculed her and called her a “drama queen” saying, “you have lost nothing.”  Shortly, the other one joined the feeding frenzy and informed the woman that she should just get on with her life since an unborn child is nothing more than a “bump in the belly” 

Now you can be assured that both of these people have seen sonogram images and know exactly what the unborn child is and is not.  So not only were they coldly indifferent to this woman’s suffering, they knew that they were lying about the nature of her loss.  But in their small minds, any discussion that acknowledges the humanity of the unborn is a threat to the pro-choice political agenda.  If protecting that agenda means that a grief-stricken mom has to be demeaned and attacked, so be it.

Of course, more sophisticated pro-choice types would have known better than to go into the public and make such moronic and heartless statements.  It’s not that they don’t feel that way, it’s just not good public relations to admit it.  But the fact is, this attack was a perfect reflection of the pro-choice mentality.

However, in a world where the reality of the unborn is becoming harder to deny, many in the pro-choice mob will now concede that the unborn child is indeed a living human being.  But they still contend that it is okay to butcher them.  In their war to advance their demented worldviews and political agendas, they consider the humanity of the unborn as inconsequential and their deaths as collateral damage.   And that is quickly becoming the core operating principle of the pro-choice movement. 

It also defines the nature of our enemies.  Although some pro-lifers would prefer to see them as just misguided or uninformed people with whom we have a philosophical disagreement, that is simply not the case.  With almost no exceptions, those who most vehemently defend legalized abortion are morally bankrupt, self-absorbed people who dismiss concepts like “right and wrong” as quaint and irrelevant. 

At the moment we accept that reality, we gain a much better understanding of what it takes to beat these people.   In short, if we want to stop the killing we must not be naïve about the killers.

How would you like to ask the pro-choice mob a question that is guaranteed to have them jumping around like worms on a hot rock?  Well, read on.  

Three facts are important to know.  First, though there are certainly members of the gay community who are pro-life, go to any large public event put on by the pro-choice gang, or read any edition of the NOW Times or MS Magazine, and you will see that the “mainstream” homosexual lobby and the “mainstream” abortion lobby are joined at the hip.

Second, the current “enlightened” and “politically correct” view is that homosexuality is not a choice but a function of genetics.  While I am not convinced this is true, if it is then it is only a matter of time before scientists identify the genetic marker for homosexuality.
 
Third, the abortion lobby has made it clear that they will never back away from their fundamental assertion that the reasons for abortion are no ones business except the women who have them. 

In light of these three facts, let’s ask our enemies one simple and completely appropriate question:  Should it be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child solely because there is genetic evidence that the child may turn out to be gay? 

When you ask that question, their only options are to either abandon their basic position or risk alienating one of their most loyal support groups.  We should also keep in mind that these people have failed this sort of test before.  You may recall that standing-up for the disabled was, at one point, sold as an integral part of the liberal agenda.  But the first time that effort conflicted with the abortion license, the Godless Left did not hesitate for one moment to throw the disabled under the bus. 

The result is that, for example, in America today over 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome are killed in the womb.  In fact, legalized abortion has so decayed American society that abortion is now the default position for women carrying a child with even the most insignificant abnormalities.  In our brave new world, if a new mom delivers a handicapped baby she better be prepared to routinely answer the question, “Didn’t your doctor tell you about this while you were still pregnant?” 

That sorry question and all it implies is part of the “better-dead-than-disabled” mentality that now infects our country.  And make no mistake about it, that mindset is the sole responsibility of the pro-choice mob and it has helped them sell lots of abortions.  To one degree or another, it has also created a rift between them and those who truly care about the disabled.

Whatever the consequences, it is pretty clear that the Choice Mafia is not going to turn off this path.  They have apparently decided that they cannot afford to say that any woman should be denied her “right to choose” for any reason.  If a “homosexual gene” is ever identified, the bloodbath they are currently prosecuting against Down syndrome and other “imperfect” children will be expanded to include those who might turn out to be gay.  In fact, we may discover that parents are actually more likely to have a potentially gay child killed than one with Down syndrome. 

If the homosexual lobby has not yet thought about this issue, it’s time they did.  We need to show them that when the American holocaust turns its attention in their direction, it will be their pro-choice buddies who not only defend it but carry it out.     

We should also introduce the reality that this phenomenon is not going to be limited to homosexuality.  Some scientists are now speculating that genetics may influence people to embrace certain political ideologies.  So imagine that someday a conservative, but otherwise pro-choice, organization launches a campaign to encourage – not force or require but simply encourage – pregnant women to kill any fetus they are carrying who is identified as having a politically liberal genetic marker.  Would these pro-choice death-merchants have any problem with that? 

If you analyze what genetic scientists are now suggesting, the possibilities for this line of dialog are endless.  If it is true that virtually every person born into the world is a potential member of a group that could be genetically identified, that means they could be targeted for extinction through abortion. 

The bizarre part of this is that, if we press this issue to its logical conclusion, the abortion lobby may be forced to adopt a completely different “abortion-justification” argument.  Instead of saying that women should be allowed to abort for any reason whatsoever, they may have to say that the only women who should be allowed to abort are those who are doing so for no reason whatsoever.

Abortion enthusiast, Anna Quindlen, recently wrote an article for Newsweek Magazine in which she raised the issue of what the punishment should be for women who have abortions once they are again illegal.  Her claim was that this is a question for which the pro-life movement has no answer.  Of course, she is lying since most of the pro-life movement’s leaders have addressed this issue many times, over many years.  The only problem is that, like the rest of our enemies, she just doesn’t like the answer. 

Having said that, however, I will agree to take the bait and go down this dusty trail one more time.  So here it goes.   

While some of my fellow pro-lifers feel that jailing women who submit to illegal abortions is necessary to be consistent with the pro-life principle, most seem to agree with me that there is no practical incentive for doing so.  Our view is that, for several pragmatic reasons, future laws against abortion should concentrate on the abortionist just as they did before Roe v. Wade.

To begin with, except in the extremely unlikely event that a woman is actually caught in the act of having an illegal abortion, a conviction would be virtually impossible to obtain.  In addition, the woman is the best source of information and evidence needed to convict the abortionist.  If she faced prosecution, she would never admit to the abortion.  That would make it almost impossible for the state to get the evidence needed to convict the abortionist and leave him free to kill again. 

This doesn’t excuse the woman for having participated in an illegal act.  It simply recognizes that the public interest is best served by removing the abortionist from society, and that legal sanctions against the woman would reduce the chances of that happening.  It’s no different than the authorities granting immunity to a small-time drug user in exchange for information on a big-time drug dealer.  Remember, the goal of the pro-life movement is to stop abortion.  Imprisoning a woman who had an illegal abortion would prevent nothing since her child is already dead, but imprisoning the abortionist might save thousands of babies in the future.  If giving women a pass on prosecution is the best way to make that happen, that is a deal worth making. 
 
We should also consider that, given the shortage and expense of jail space in America, it makes no sense to incarcerate a woman who had one abortion when that same cell could hold an abortionist who might do them by the thousands.  And let there be no mistake about it, jail is precisely where abortionists deserve to be.  Their customers may or may not be fully aware of what they are doing, but no such defense can be made for them.  When they pull those tiny arms and legs and heads out of women, they know for a fact that they are committing the most brutal of murders.  I offer no apology for saying that there is not one person sitting in a prison cell anywhere in the world who committed an act worse than performing abortions.  Furthermore, not one of those people victimized someone as helpless as an unborn baby.  So not only are abortionists contract killers with the morals of sewer rats, they are cowards as well.

When discussing this punishment issue, something very curious inevitably creeps into the conversation.  Although some pro-lifers argue for imprisoning women who submit to abortion, the people most adamant that this is the only rational policy are those who call themselves pro-choice.  Like many other things they do, this exposes their cynicism and hypocrisy.  On one hand, they try to frighten women with the suggestion that pro-lifers are going to have them tossed into jail.  When we make it clear that we have no such intention, their response is to say that if we don’t call for women to be jailed the only conclusion is that even we are not really convinced of our position.  It is classic abortion industry double-talk.   

Now, I have a suggestion for the Anna Quindlens of the world that will resolve this whole issue.  If these people think it’s unfair for only abortionists to be targeted, let them be the ones to lobby for legislation to put the women in jail.  If instead of helping women facing unplanned pregnancies find alternatives to illegal abortions, the Choice Mafia would prefer to seek legislation to put them in prison, my gut feeling is that they will find little legislative support for it.  But we’ll see.  In the mean time, while they look for the best way to put all their customers in jail, those of us in the pro-life movement will focus on finding the fastest way to stop the killing.   

I recently heard an animal rights activist who called herself pro-choice on abortion say that we pro-lifers are hypocritical because we don’t show the same level of concern for dogs and cats that we do for the unborn child.  Of course, like almost every other pro-choice argument, this one is firmly rooted in mindless stupidity. 

When someone suggests that the lives of human beings and the lives of animals are morally equivalent, what they are saying is that if they ran over someone’s five-year-old child with their car it would be no bigger deal than if they had run over a squirrel.  By this standard, if a family doctor told a husband and wife that their child has an incurable and fatal disease, that would be no greater tragedy than if their vet told them their pet hamster was dying.

Clearly, this whole line of “reasoning” is nonsense. 

The reality is, having known thousands of pro-lifers, I can state with no fear of being inaccurate that the overwhelming majority do indeed care about animals.  In my own case, our family includes a cat, two dogs, two rabbits, and five fish.  We demonstrate our affection for them in many ways, not the least of which is in vet bills that often appear higher than the debt of some third-world counties.

I also feel confident that most pro-lifers probably share my opinion that people who abuse or neglect animals are cowards who deserve to spend a significant amount of their lives sitting in small, cold, dimly-lit prison cells. 

However, anyone who suggests that the lives of animals are morally equivalent to those of human beings is in need of psychiatric help.  But if these animal rights wackos honestly believe that they are, I have a legitimate question for them. 

If animals have rights in the sense that humans have rights, how do we protect those rights?  I’m not talking about protecting animals from having their rights violated by humans.  That’s relatively easy.  What I’m asking is how we protect animals from having their rights violated by other animals.  After all, most of the abuse done to animals is not committed by people but by other animals.  Moreover, it is illogical to say that we will only protect the rights of animals when those rights are being violated by humans. 

So how do we fix the long-standing problem of animal-on-animal abuse?  Should we assign police officers to patrol the nation’s fields and forests?  And what do we do when the authorities catch some furry or feathered miscreant?  For example, if a hawk has been apprehended for swooping down and eating a chipmunk, does the arresting officer have to read the hawk his Miranda rights?  And how do we make sure that the hawk understands his rights if the cop isn’t fluent in hawk?  Also, if the hawk can’t afford an attorney, do we appoint one to represent him at trial? 

Another question is whether we should create an animal DNA database so that when one mouse steals another mouse’s cheese we can identify and prosecute the right mouse.  After all, as an enlightened and civilized people, surely we would not want to incarcerate an innocent mouse.

As we contemplate these weighty matters, let’s not forget that over 3000 innocent human beings will be sent to the gallows today with no trial, no judge, no jury, no appeal, and no stay of execution.  And this holocaust will be repeated tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and so forth.  Meanwhile, not one animal rights organization takes a position against it. 

Now that’s hypocrisy.