On Friday, 63-year-old pro-life protestor, Jim Pouillon, was gunned down on a sidewalk in Owosso, Michigan. Immediately, speculation was that he was killed for his pro-life activities.
My initial response was to urge my fellow pro-lifers not to jump to conclusions regardless of how obvious they might appear. I took this approach because I remember the situation in 1993 when Florida abortionist, George Patterson, was shot and killed in Mobile, Alabama. Immediately, both the local and national abortion lobby launched into a hysterical public tirade against the pro-life movement demanding that the streets be swept clean of “these violent anti-choice and anti-women religious fanatics.”
The problem was, authorities eventually concluded that Patterson's shooting was unrelated to his baby-killing racket. In reality, he was shot for failing to pay off on a bet he had made with a mob bookie. Somehow, abortionist Patterson had reached adulthood without becoming aware that organized crime takes an unforgiving position on such oversights. It's also interesting that the murder occurred as Patterson was leaving some sleazy Triple-X porn shop and pole-dancing bar. Further investigation would also reveal that this noble champion of women was a "regular" at this wholesome establishment and on a first-name basis with the proprietors.
Of course, the fact that the pro-choice crowd had made complete asses of themselves by hurling unfounded charges at the pro-life movement, was quietly swept under the rug by their fellow degenerates in the media.
Then came Friday. And the reason I urged caution in our reaction was because I knew, as we all know, that if we were to jump to a conclusion that eventually proved false, the magnanimous treatment shown our enemies in 1993 would not be shown to us today. Instead, the media would make sure we were soon rotating over a low flame.
But that concern is now gone. Prosecutors in Michigan have confirmed that, according to the suspect in custody, Jim was indeed targeted because of his pro-life activism. In a nutshell, an elderly man wearing leg braces and breathing through an oxygen tank was brutally murdered for protesting abortion on a public sidewalk.
That leaves us with a very simple question. Simply put, will the responses to this killing match the responses we’ve seen in the past when some abortionist was shot. For example…
1. Will the FBI launch an investigation to find links between the suspect and other pro-choice individuals or organizations?
2. Will the United States Department of Justice try to establish that these killings were part of a larger pro-choice conspiracy?
3. Will pro-choice organizations have their phones illegally tapped and their mail illegally opened by federal authorities?
4. Will U.S. Marshals now be assigned to protect peaceful non-violent pro-lifers while they are exercising their First Amendment rights?
5. Will Congress rush to pass new legislation that would protect people who exercise their Constitutional right to protest abortion?
6. Will pro-life protestors be given protective zones around themselves into which pro-choice activists may not legally enter?
7. Will media pundits be suggesting that the heated rhetoric of the pro-choice movement is what led to these killings?
8. Will any rabidly pro-choice media commentator be accused of creating the atmosphere that made such a killing inevitable?
9. Will the Democratic Party’s unwavering advocacy of abortion-on-demand be cited as a motivating factor for the shooter?
10. Will those who call themselves pro-choice now be forever labeled, “One of those fanatics who murder people they don’t agree with?”
Of course, we all know what the answer to each of these questions will be. We all know that the most likely response will be that the pro-life movement and the victim himself created the environment in which this killing occurred.
You can count on it.
On Friday, 63-year-old pro-life protestor, Jim Pouillon, was gunned down on a sidewalk in Owosso, Michigan. Immediately, speculation was that he was killed for his pro-life activities.
“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.
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.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta is the chief medical correspondent for CNN and was recently courted by the Obama administration to be the next Surgeon General of the United States. He would eventually withdraw his name from consideration saying that family matters would prevent him from serving.
A few days later, Barak Obama lifted the federal ban on using taxpayer money to pay for embryonic stem cell research. He even left the door open for it to be legal to create embryos for the intended purpose of killing them and using them in medical experiments.
Then, Sanjay Gupta interviewed America’s moral guru, Bill Clinton, to get his reaction to this new policy. To no one’s surprise, the former Degenerate in Chief was completely on board with the decision saying that it was justified since, in his words, “these embryos cannot be fertilized and become little babies.” He went so far as to say that using unfertilized embryos in this way was a “pro-life” decision.
Of course, this is pure nonsense and Clinton knew it. This guy is fully aware that, by the embryo stage, fertilization has already occurred. But ol’ Slick Willy was in sales pitch mode and he knew that this “unfertilized embryo” jibberish might slip past those who failed to connect what he was saying to what they learned in junior high school biology.
What’s more important, however, is that Sanjay Gupta also knew that Clinton was lying but chose to say nothing. And with his silence, he demonstrated exactly why the Obama administration wanted him for Surgeon General.
These people understand that, in order to push their version of the Brave New World, they will need a Surgeon General who knows how to keep his mouth shut when biological facts conflict with political agendas. In addition, the fact that Gupta would have been coming into this job right out of the media also showed that he was already on board with the “hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil” party line that Barak Obama must have to be successful.
I also want to point out something else that happened about this same time. While Obama was justifying his embryonic stem cell decision on the basis that science should not be hampered by moral considerations, he was also ruling that cloning for reproductive reasons would not be legal because it was simply immoral.
I guess we can safely conclude from this that Barack Obama graduated from the Bill Clinton School of Doubletalk and Flexible Morals.
When Bill Clinton was elected president, I made the argument that the problem wasn’t Bill Clinton but the millions of people who voted for him. And the same thing is true about Barak Obama. I can assure you that there have always been people who wanted to be president whose morals were no better than those of Clinton or Obama. The difference was that, back when America was still a Christian nation, the voters had better morals than to knowingly elect these kind of people to public office. That’s because we were able to assume that there was a connection between what people claimed to believe and how they conducted themselves. For example, in those days when someone said they were a Christian, that meant something.
Unfortunately, that is no longer the case and the abortion issue provides a perfect example of this phenomenon.
All across America, there are those who claim that it is possible for them to be pro-choice – or vote for a supporter of legalized abortion – without abandoning their Christian principles. They get away with this despite the fact that, from a theological standpoint, what they are saying is clearly demonstrable hogwash.
Two fundamental doctrines of Christianity are that God is the author of life and that He is incapable of making mistakes. Obviously, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from those concepts is that when life exists in the womb it is God’s will that it be there. Since the obvious goal of abortion is to deny that will, support for its legality is, by definition, incompatible with Christianity.
The fact is, when someone claims to be pro-choice they are asserting three things. The first is that life is not a right inherited from God but a privilege bestowed by human beings who can withhold it if they “choose” to do so. The second is that God is neutral on whether a child He created is brutally torn limb from limb. The third is that it is possible to reject the innocent new lives that God creates without rejecting God Himself. From a Christian perspective, all three of these views are absurd.
In the final analysis, Christians cannot be pro-choice about the intentional destruction of innocent human life any more than they can be pro-choice about rape, robbery, slavery, incest, child abuse, etc.
A couple of years ago, I saw something that demonstrated just how far we’ve taken this idea that someone’s behavior is unrelated to their Christianity. In a documentary on cable about the exploding pornography business in America, there was an interview with some sleaze ball from California who is generally acknowledged to be America’s Porn King. Within the industry, his company is known for churning out an almost unbelievable volume of the raunchiest material imaginable. And understand, we’re not talking about videos of naked people, we’re talking about videos of people doing things so revolting that most of the pubic could not even imagine that they are actually legal.
Not surprisingly, the underlying theme of every video is the submission, exploitation and intentional degradation of women. It is hard to imagine the volume of drugs that this industry has to pour down the throats of its “actresses” in order to get them to participate in this kind of garbage, but I would not be surprised if it rivaled the GNP of some small countries.
In any event, one could not help but notice that, during his interview, the Porn King was wearing a necklace with a small gold cross on it. The documentary also featured a clip from one of his videos in which one of the several women writhing around on screen was wearing a cross around her neck as well.
When the pornographer and his young porn star were asked how they could reconcile this apparent inconsistency, both said that their religious beliefs and their chosen professions were two separate issues and that being in hardcore porn does not mean you can’t also be a good Christian. In their world, the most fundamental symbol of Christianity – the cross – no longer represents a belief system or a lifestyle or a commitment to right over wrong. It’s just a fashion statement.
The regrettable thing is, this same attitude has become almost universally adopted by the contemporary American church. It is now in such an advanced state of decay that anytime someone dares to suggest that certain lifestyles and behaviors are incompatible with the claim of being a Christian, they are attacked for being dogmatic and judgmental. Like the society at large, the church has chosen to become so open-minded that its brains fell out.
Well, there are times when someone has to say what has to be said and Tuesday’s stomach churning inauguration makes this just such a time. I know that a lot of fine upstanding church-goers will be angry when they hear me say this, but the fact is that people who claim to be Christians while helping to put a man like Barak Obama in the Oval Office – or while supporting the election of any other “pro-choice” politician – are no different than the Porn King with a cross dangling from his neck.
(1) The Palin Selection
In a word, STUNNING! I have never been a big fan of John McCain but, in my view, this was a Grand-Slam Homerun. Her selection electrified the Christian Right and its timing was brilliant – the day after the coronation of The Grand Obama. Just as the media was warming up to spend the next few days writhing and slobbering at the feet of their hero, Sarah Barracuda sucked all the air out of the room.
(2) Breathtaking Hypocrisy
Immediately after she was nominated, the Democrats jumped on the question of whether Palin was really qualified to be President of the United States. In the kindest way possible, of course, they reminded us that McCain is over 70 and – well – anything could happen. Now, in all fairness, I think it is appropriate to see this as a legitimate issue to raise. After all, her credentials for the job are not that much better than The Grand Obama’s which, as we all know, are pretty close to zero.
Interestingly, the Democrats have also been comparing Palin to Dan Quayle who they also savaged for being inexperienced. What they are leaving out is that, by any yardstick, Quayle was eminently more qualified to be Vice President than BO is to be President. He had served far more time in the Senate than Obama and had authored significant and important pieces of legislation. Meanwhile, BO has been all but invisible during his short tenure in the Senate. The fact is, until the Dems became terrified that Hillary Clinton was actually going to be their nominee, no one had ever heard of Barak Obama. Also, before these people start getting too jacked up over their inane comparisons between Palin and Quayle, perhaps they should remember that QUAYLE WON!
(3) Who Knew?
As we have heard ad-nauseam, the Democratic Party’s theme for this year’s campaign is “Change.” Naturally, they have not been very forthcoming with specifics so we remain a little unclear what we will be changing from and what we will be changing to. I guess that those of us in The Great Unwashed Masses will have to just trust that these details will be revealed to us when we need to know them. In any event, isn’t it interesting that one of these innovative fresh-thinking “Agents of Change” has been lurking in the United States Senate for the last 35 years. And all this time, we thought ol’ Joe Biden was nothing more than what he appears: an empty suit.
(4) It’s a Strange Change
If BO’s idea of change is to team up with some pompous career politician who once plagiarized a speech from a self-avowed British Marxist, Neal Kinnock, he shouldn’t be too surprised in November if the American people tell him to, “Just Keep The Change.”
(5) Maybe He Just Didn’t Want to Hire a Food-Taster
Is it possible that what kept BO from putting Hillary on the ticket was a keen eye for self-preservation? Maybe he noticed that when people get between the Clintons and whatever it is the Clintons want, they develop this mysterious habit of ending up dead. It seems that the old saying, “Heavy lies the head that wears the crown” takes on a whole new importance when the one who wants your crown is a Billory.
(6) Palin’s Pregnant Daughter
Within days after Palin was picked, some on the Godless Left began claiming that her four-month old child was actually her grandchild – the baby of her 17-year-old daughter. Their “evidence” for this is a collection of photos taken of Palin during her pregnancy in which she appeared too thin to be pregnant. Apparently, these degenerates are not aware that every woman is different and they don’t all look the same before they are pregnant, while they are pregnant, or after they are pregnant.
Anyway, a couple of days later this nonsense was exposed as a lie when Palin announced that her daughter is actually five-months pregnant right now. Although most people are bright enough to recognize that this girl couldn’t have given birth four months ago and be five months pregnant today, some of these nitwits continue to say that Palin’s baby is actually her grandchild! Apparently, they believe that pregnancies can overlap.
Of course, others on the Godless Left have now launched into a vicious diatribe about how the pregnancy of Palin’s unmarried teenage daughter exposes the hypocrisy of the Christian Right of which Palin, they say, is a member. Naturally, they are conveniently ignoring the fact that the very foundation of our belief system is that we are all fallible. In fact, if that were not the case there would be no need for Christ and no such thing as Christianity. When Palin stated that her daughter was going to keep her baby and marry the baby’s father, that was the proper Christian response to the situation. The Palin family obviously understands that the sin was the premarital sexual relationship and not the baby. Contrast this to Barak Obama’s recent statement that, if one of his daughters became pregnant, he would not want her “punished” with a baby. That alone should serve as irrefutable proof to every Christian that this man is a heretic and that his claim to be a Christian is a complete fraud.
By the way, it has also been revealed that McCain knew of this situation when he picked Palin – more evidence of what a courageous act this was.
(7) Qualifications Part 2
As we look at whether someone is qualified for any public office, it is important to understand that there are all sorts of qualifications to consider. Perhaps the best example of this is Richard Nixon. Surely, no one could argue that this man was not qualified or experienced enough to be President. In fact, an argument could be made that he may have been one of the most qualified people who ever ran. But despite that, he was a disaster for the country because he lacked character and a sense of morality.
The problem is that, in America, we tend to give credibility to those who say that morality is not an issue in public service. But in doing so, we ignore the fact that every decision a public official makes includes a moral component. When deciding whether to spend money we don’t have or can’t repay, that is a moral issue as well as a financial one. When considering the use of force in another country, that is a moral issue and not just a military one. And the list goes on and on.
So is Sarah Palin qualified to be President if something happens to McCain? The answer is that, in the conventional sense, she probably isn’t. By the way, that puts her in the same position as Barak Obama. Like it or not, only a fool would suggest that Obama, McCain, Biden or Palin are even close to being the most qualified people in the United States to be President. But when the issues are character and morality, only the most hardcore Democrat could see people like Barak Obama and Joseph Biden as qualified.
This subject reminds me of the most profound analysis of American politics I ever heard. It was William F. Buckley’s statement that he would rather see the country run by the first 535 people in the Boston phone book than by the 535 members of Congress. The late Mr. Buckley clearly understood that the traditional yardsticks for determining whether someone is “qualified” for a particular job in politics haven’t served us all that well.
(8) Earth to Mr. Savage. Earth to Mr. Savage. Come in Mr. Savage.
I often find myself agreeing with the substance, if not the style, of what talk-show host, Michael Savage, has to say. Recently, however, he said something that is completely asinine.
He spent the first part of his show, correctly, identifying dangerous situations that are cropping up around the world, including the United States, because of what he calls, “Islamic-Facism.” Next up on the program, he discussed his view of why McCain passed over Mitt Romney for VP. It was because, according to Mr. Savage, evangelicals would not have been supportive of a Mormon. And that may be true. Then Savage angrily opined that a person’s religion should have no bearing on whether they are qualified to serve in public office.
Let’s get real here. The only reason the “Islamic-Facist” behave as they do is because of their religious beliefs. I am not suggesting that Mormons are comparable to these people or that they should not be allowed to hold public office, but I am saying that someone’s religious beliefs are not irrelevant or even unimportant.
The reality is that, contrary to popular misconception, we now live in a theocracy. It was not meant to be that way, but over the years that is what it has become. Secular Humanism is a religion, its priests are the nine judges on the Supreme Court, and the citizens of the United States are required to live by its dogma. So the question is not whether we want to have politicians inflicting their religious views on us, the question is what particular religious views we prefer to be inflicted. In such an environment, to suggest that a candidate’s religious views are irrelevant is nuts.
Some people try to finesse the abortion issue by saying that they would support a ban after the child is viable but allow abortion before that point. There are basically five reasons why this is an indefensible position.
First, defending pre-viability abortion on the basis that the child cannot survive if removed from the womb is so illogical it’s laughable. It’s like a man saying, “Since my wife can’t survive if I shoot her in the head, that means it’s okay for me to shoot her in the head.” Or better yet, it would be like a doctor saying, “This patient will fully recover if we leave his feeding tube in place, but he will die if we remove it. Therefore, it’s okay to remove his feeding tube.” In reality, if an unborn baby has not reached the point of viability, that is an argument against abortion not in support of it.
Second, viability is a function of medical technology and is unrelated to the question of whether the unborn are living human beings or not. This is proven by the fact that premature babies are now routinely surviving at gestational ages that would have been unthinkable a hundred years ago.
Third, if viability is the yardstick, a legitimate argument could be made that we now know that the unborn are viable from the moment of conception. After all, if that were not true, in-vitro fertilization would not be possible since the new human life created in this process would die immediately. The fact is, it is only placed in the mom’s womb because medical technology is not yet able to provide an alternative environment in which it can survive.
Fourth, if the argument is that the unborn are not viable because they are dependent on others to survive, then a one-week-old baby is no more viable than an unborn baby. Neither can survive alone. That could also be said about people who are severely handicapped or suffering from some debilitating illness, as well as people who are senile, comatose, unconscious, or under general anesthesia. If the ability to survive without the aid of others is what creates the right to life, these people have no more right to life than the unborn.
The fifth reason viability cannot be used is the fact that the abortionist is always the one who gets to determine whether his intended victim is viable or not. And if there was ever a textbook example of letting the fox guard the henhouse, this is it.
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?
In the early days of the abortion battle, the pro-choice mob’s central argument was that the unborn are not human. Of course, for this to be true, a woman would have to have the ability to be pregnant with something that is not human. After discovering that they were unable to defend such a loopy assertion, the abortion lobby quietly dropped it.
Their follow-up was to grudgingly concede that the unborn are human – but not human beings. When this also proved to be logically unsustainable, they were once again forced to move on.
Over the next few years, their position became that the unborn might indeed be human beings but they are not persons. The problem is, the English language contains no word for a human being who is not a person. In short, this argument is not based on any generally accepted concept. The best that the abortion lobby has been able to come up with is that personhood is a legal definition and not a biological one. But even some of them are uncomfortable with the Orwellian idea that the Supreme Court can take rights away from selected categories of human beings by simply declaring them non-persons. Despite that, however, this argument is still floated around from time to time.
There are numerous other examples of how the defense of abortion has been forced to change over the years, but the reason why they have had to do this has remained constant. Simply put, at its core, the pro-choice position is not based on any fundamental or observable truth. Whether the standard is scientific, biological, legal or theological, the humanity of the unborn is simply undeniable and, given that reality, there is no way to rationalize their slaughter.
The problem our enemies are having with their “moving target” strategy, is that all of their quasi-lucid arguments have been exposed and they now have to resort to the absurd. The good news is that these moronic defenses of abortion are the most compelling evidence yet to support my long-espoused claim that the pro-life movement is winning.
The best place to see this firsthand is on the ProLifeAmerica.com Forum. One recent argument seen there, and one I have heard repeated elsewhere, is that abortion is justified because the unborn are not sentient. This basically means that it is okay to execute them because they have no awareness or perception. It is a completely undocumented argument, but no less so than any of the others they’ve used over the last 35 years. Moreover, I would argue that, on this basis, we should be allowed to hang almost every member of Congress – but that’s an issue for another time.
As it regards abortion, the reality is that the sentience (or lack thereof) of the unborn is irrelevant. Even if it were possible to scientifically prove that the unborn are not sentient, that would provide no moral justification for their execution. They are living human beings and what they are aware of, or unaware of, has no bearing on that.
I also noticed a bizarre irony in this “sentience” argument. At the same time that the Choice Mafia is saying it is okay to kill the unborn because they are not sentient, the federal courts are taking the opposite position regarding capital punishment. Their position is that they will not allow executions unless the condemned is sentient. This prevents states from executing someone who is in a coma or someone whose IQ falls below a certain point.
As someone who is opposed to both abortion and capital punishment, I am a little bewildered. Are we saying that we can legally kill innocent people because they are not sentient, but we can only kill guilty people if they are sentient? Apparently, I’m just not smart enough to understand that the “sentience” target not only has the ability to move, it also has the ability to be in two places at the same time.
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.
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.
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?
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.