1) Remember the Mission
For many years now, I’ve been saying that the pro-life movement must not judge success on its ability or inability to win over the pro-choice mob and that our goal is not to convert these people but to stop them. Of course, for an equal number of years there have been some in the pro-life community who challenge that position.
Fortunately, over time I have seen the percentage of those who disagree with me decrease significantly. It seems that our movement is, indeed, becoming less naïve. But such naïveté has certainly not been eradicated altogether. It still exists, and may always exist, because pro-lifers tend to be decent well-meaning people who sincerely want to assume the best about others. And while that is certainly a laudable trait, there are two fundamental truths about the abortion struggle that make this attitude unrealistic.
First, the pro-life position is one based exclusively on a moral principle. We do not oppose the slaughter of the unborn because it is impractical or because it lacks utilitarian advantages. We fight against abortion because it is so abysmally wrong that it cannot be either defended or ignored.
Second, those who most vehemently defend abortion are not just misguided or uninformed people with whom we have a philosophical disagreement. Instead, the “pro-choice” community is dominated by amoral and self-absorbed people who find concepts like “right and wrong” to be quaint and irrelevant.
Combining these two realities means that our enemies are effectively immune to any argument against the legalization of abortion. With very few exceptions, they are not winnable and, therefore, we must never evaluate our effectiveness on our ability or inability to convert them.
Now, I can appreciate why some would disagree with me on this. I have no doubt that they are much nicer people than me and, like I said a moment ago, they want to believe the best about everyone – even the Choice Mafia. If that describes you, all I ask is that you look for examples in world history where barbarians stopped what they were doing because they came to see that it was wrong. What you will discover is that inertia is a fundamental property of barbarism. It never stops on its own.
2) The Bastardization of Compassion
I have often written about the fact that, in America today, over 90 percent of children suspected of having Down syndrome are executed in the womb. I use the word “suspected” because a mistaken diagnosis in this area is not at all unheard of.
Generally, the apologists for this particular form of savagery try to rationalize it by claiming that we do it “to protect these babies against a lifetime of suffering.” Those people are lying through their teeth. They know good and well that our society does not slaughter babies with Down syndrome in order to “put them out of their misery;” we do it to put them out of our misery. Whether we want to admit it or not, these babies are killed because we find them inconvenient, unsightly, more expensive to care for than they are worth and missing many of the “normal” human qualities we so admire in ourselves.
That is the inevitable nature of a culture that places a utilitarian rather than an intrinsic value on human life. It is a system in which those with power decide who gets to live and on what justification those who fail to qualify may be killed. Today, this philosophy defines how we approach war, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and, if socialized medicine is in our future, it will define how we ration healthcare.
The fact is, in the “Brave New World” that America has become over the last forty years or so, the right-to-life must be earned. And for anyone we label “less than perfect,” earning that right becomes more difficult every day. In fact, just considering the Down syndrome issue alone, the inevitable question is why we should limit our compassion to the unborn. After all, if it is compassionate to kill those who, if allowed to be born, may suffer a life of misery, surely it would be even more compassionate to kill those who are already suffering such a life.
At this moment in history, we need to understand that what I’m suggesting here may be neither farfetched nor far away. That is why you and I must fight these people with every ounce of strength we can summon and we must do so until we draw the last breath God gives us.
3) A Frightening Time
It is undeniable that we've had defective people occupy the Oval Office before now and we don't have to look very far back in history to find them. Nixon was a paranoid crook whose view that the law didn't apply in his case brought the country to the edge of a Constitutional collapse. Carter was a buffoon who is proving to be as squalid a nuisance as an ex-president as he was as a sitting president. Clinton was a moral degenerate whose abysmal behavior exposed the entire system of American government to derision. And Bush 43 may have been well-intentioned but my feeling is that history is going to judge him far closer to Jimmy Carter than George Washington.
However, none of these people were nearly as dangerous or destructive as the guy who sits in that office today. During the 2008 presidential campaign, I said that the Obama phenomenon is less a political movement than a cult. Now the evidence to support that view is all around us and growing like a slimy green mold. Compared to the Obaministas, the Stepford Wives look like a herd of anarchists.
The frightening thing is, not since the Nixon administration have we seen anything like the way dissent is not tolerated. In both cases, loyalty could accurately be defined as blind devotion and unquestioned obedience as well as a willingness to be oblivious to whatever the leader does. The difference is that, in those days, if you criticized Tricky Dick you ended up on some sort of “Enemies List” and got your taxes audited. Today, anyone who says anything negative about The Grand Obama will instantly be labeled either a racist or an Uncle Tom–depending on the malefactor's skin color.
And that brings me to my latest question: is the International Olympic Committee going to be labeled “racists” now that they’ve rejected Obama’s pitch to bring the Olympics to Chicago? Or is that tactic only used in the case of Americans who dissent from the party line?
4) Caught Lying
First, the Godless Left says that abortion will not be covered under ObamaCare. But then, they fight any effort to include language that specifically excludes abortion. With a straight face, they will say it is an unnecessary waste of effort to add this one tiny paragraph to the bill – even though it is already slated to be over a thousand pages long. In other words, they are lying through their teeth. If abortion is not going to be covered, a one paragraph addition to confirm it would do no harm. Their refusal to allow this provision in the legislation is irrefutable proof that they intend to take money out of the paychecks of every American to buy abortions for other people.
What we need to be reminding them of is that the word “healthcare” relates to the prevention and/or treatment of illness, injury and disease and that pregnancy is none of those. In addition, according to the abortion industry’s own statistics, almost every elective abortion in America is done for a non-medical reason on a healthy baby and a healthy mother whose pregnancy poses no threat to either her life or physical well-being. What all this means is that, by definition, ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE!
Amazingly, some Obamanistas are arguing that ObamaCare will reduce the number of abortions even if it pays for them. Of course, many of those making this claim are the same grinning idiots who tell the lie that you can be a Christian and pro-life even while working to put a pro-abortion heretic like Obama into the White House.
They are also ignoring that long-established principle of politics which says, “When you want less of something you tax it and when you want more of something you subsidize it.” I have never heard of an exception to this and, in the unlikely case that such exceptions actually exist, there is no evidence that abortion is among them. So the real question here is: just how pathetically stupid would you have to be to conclude that making abortions “free” will cause the abortion rate to drop?
Let me tell you the bottom line here. Any form of socialized medicine will eventually, if not immediately, cover elective abortion. Even if abortion is specifically excluded, the Obamanistas are banking that a future court decision will rule that this prohibition is unconstitutional. And I think they are correct in making that assumption. I can also assure you that, if national healthcare is passed, it won’t be long before a challenge to any abortion exemption is headed toward the Supreme Court. For that reason, until we return legal protection to the unborn, we cannot afford to have ANY legislation passed that would create a national healthcare system.
1) Remember the Mission
“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.
With the killing of America’s most notorious abortionist, George Tiller, you can be assured that the abortion lobby and their media flunkeys are, once again, hyperventilating over the opportunity that has fallen into their laps. As they have done in the past, they now get to project this image of poor hapless abortion clinic workers having to dodge a hail of automatic weapon fire every morning just to get from their car to the death camp door.
As the curtain rises on this little dog and pony show, let’s make it our job to see that the audience keeps at least one foot in reality. We need to be pointing out that, when the Department of Justice or the FBI publish studies on workplace violence, the rate of violence at abortion clinics is so statistically insignificant that it doesn’t make it onto the final charts. In fact, even if the statistics are limited to only include violence against health care professionals, abortionists do not show up on the radar screen.
To see how overblown this issue has been, consider just the two years during which the most violence against abortion providers took place. Of the eight total murders that have occurred at America’s abortion mills during the past 36 years, five were in 1993 and 1994 alone. But according to government statistics from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, during those same two years there were 2,154 other people killed in work-related homicides in the United States including seven school teachers, four members of the clergy, 10 lawyers, nine newspaper vendors, seven writers, six realtors, 22 waiters or waitresses, four groundskeepers, five architects, 40 garage or service station attendants, 23 auto mechanics, 21 janitors, 10 hairdressers, four carpenters, and six farmers.
In other words, during the worst period of “pro-life violence” in American history, more farmers and twice as many hairdressers were murdered on the job than abortion clinic workers and abortionists combined. And remember, the five abortion clinic killings during 1993 and 1994 account for all but three of the killings that have happened in the history of the pro-life struggle.
Compared to the thousands of taxi drivers, convenience store employees, police officers, firefighters, and other workers who were killed during that time, it is obvious that all of this wailing and hand-wringing about violence against abortion providers is complete nonsense. This is confirmed by the reality that the media is only able to make such a big deal about “pro-life violence” because it is so rare. If it were even remotely common, they could not give it so much press. Also lost in this discussion is the fact that if abortion clinic shootings, assaults, bombings, arson, and other acts of violence were anywhere near as common as the abortion lobby claims, every abortion mill in the country would have to shut down because there would not be an insurance company on the planet that would sell them coverage.
Cutting to the chase, any objective analysis of this issue shows that the level of violence committed by people opposed to abortion has been grotesquely exaggerated and that the pro-life movement is, by far, the most peaceful socio-political movement of its size and tenure in American history. To see the truth of that, all you have to do is study the other causes which are most similar: the anti-slavery, civil rights, and labor struggles. It is not opinion but provable fact that, in those movements, there have been many times during which more violence was committed in a single day than has taken place in the entire 36-year history of the pro-life movement.
Another thing that’s interesting to note is that not one of the murders of abortionists or abortion clinic employees occurred prior to the inauguration of Bill Clinton. And the explanation for that is brutally simple.
Immediately after taking office, Clinton and his Attorney General, Janet Reno, began paying off their campaign debts to the abortion lobby. While Clinton got legislation passed to sweep the streets clean of peaceful non-violent picketers, Reno literally turned the Attorney General’s office and the FBI into a private police force for the abortion industry. By the way, that analysis did not originate with me; it was given to me by an FBI agent who told me that he was sick and tired of being sent out to investigate “pro-life terrorists” only to find some 70-year-old nun in tennis shoes whose act of “terrorism” was praying the Rosary in front of some godless abortion mill.
When rumors about Reno’s witch-hunts first surfaced, she flatly denied that such a campaign even existed. But documents were eventually uncovered that proved she was lying through her blood-stained teeth. The project even had an official name. It was called, VAAPCON and I know, first-hand, that it led to at least one pro-life organization having its mail illegally opened and its phones illegally tapped. This happened despite the fact that this organization had no ties to even one single act of violence, had never endorsed violence and was not associated with one person who was accused of committing violence. The reason I know this is because the organization I’m talking about is Life Dynamics. And we were certainly not the only targets. In the ensuing years, I have been told by other pro-life leaders that they too had the same experience.
Given this environment, it is hardly surprising that less than three months after Clinton and Reno began cracking skulls, the first shooting occurred. This is not to suggest that this atmosphere justified the violence. But on the other hand, we cannot pretend that it occurred in a vacuum. If a woman kills her abusive husband, even those who would argue that the abuse did not justify the killing would at least recognize that it may have been a motivating factor. In this case, it would be illogical to ignore the fact that, before the Clinton/Reno inquisition began, not one abortion clinic employee or abortionist had ever been shot.
Now we fast-forward to 2009 and find the Obama administration, which mainly consists of has-beens and retreads from the Clinton administration, publicly labeling as terrorists anyone who thinks it is wrong to butcher unborn human beings by the millions. Then a short time later, we have the first shooting of an abortionist since Bill and Hillary burglarized the White House on their way out of town.
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.
As I watch Congress deal with the mess on Wall Street, three things come to mind.
First, we are once again forced to watch as a collection of buffoons who couldn’t run a lemonade stand are allowed to manipulate the largest economy in the history of the world. In all fairness, however, I will concede that it is possible that they will make sound financial decisions. If pressed to give the odds of that actually happening, I’d say they are roughly the same as the odds that a monkey flailing away at a typewriter would type out the Old Testament.
Second, I am suspicious of the speed at which this calamity unfolded. It seems that within about an-hour-and-a-half after all this became public, Congress was in emergency session. Then a few minutes later, a trillion-dollar bailout plan was announced as if it were a done-deal which, as we now know, it wasn’t.
I get the uneasy feeling that Congress wants this whole thing to go away as quickly as possible. The question is, why? They are claiming this is the biggest meltdown since the Great Depression, so wouldn’t it be wise to take some time to design the right solution? So why aren’t they? And don’t for a moment believe that they are scurrying around like this because they are worried about the impact it will have on the American people. I will assure you that whenever you see Congress running down the field like their hair is on fire, there is always something in it for them.
Call me cynical, but it seems to me that Congress wants to get rid of this problem before the public has a chance to figure out that they are the ones who caused it. And if that is indeed the case, I will also assure you that whatever bill is finally passed will be one that covers-up that reality. Remember, this is an election year.
Finally, there are moral considerations related to this problem. In America today, we want to treat morality as if it is something that only applies to issues like abortion and homosexuality. But the fact is that every decision a politician makes has a moral component. In this case, the problem was created by financial institutions that ignored the immorality of loaning money to people that they knew couldn’t pay it back, and consumers who took these loans knowing the same thing.
The point is that the best financial minds in the world cannot solve this problem if the solution is indifferent to morality. Unfortunately, when you look at the people in Congress who are in charge of addressing this issue, what you see is that the vast majority have morals that are so low they can support the wholesale slaughter of unborn children. In short, while their financial qualifications may be weak, their moral qualifications are non-existent. And we are fooling ourselves if we think that such people can come up with anything more than a temporary patch.
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.
On April 3, 2008, state authorities carried-out an armed raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) facility in Eldorado, Texas. They were acting on suspicions that some members of this religious sect were sexually exploiting children and others were concealing it.
Before long, the State of Texas had taken custody of more than 400 children and isolated them from their parents. Now, even the most ardent defenders of this action are conceding that the evidence being acted upon may turn out to be a little flimsy and the roundup overly broad. Time will be the judge of that. My suspicion is that unless mass indictments are eventually returned, the State of Texas is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
Obviously, any decent person understands that society has an obligation to protect children against sexual predators. They also have an obligation to act against adults who fail to protect children against sexual predators. In fact, that is the most common justification given for separating the children in the Eldorado raid from their parents.
If this all turns out to be legitimate, I say drop the parents in jail right along side the perps. They deserve each other. But I also want to know why everyone suspected of being involved in the cover-up of child sexual abuse are not the targets of such investigations.
As you may recall, we conducted a three-month undercover investigation in which we recorded over 800 calls to Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities across America – including Texas. Our female caller portrayed a 13-year-old girl who was pregnant by an adult and wanted an abortion in order to hide the illegal sexual relationship from her parents and the authorities. On the tapes, many of the clinic workers are heard telling the caller that this situation was unlawful and that they were legally mandated to report it to the state. However, even after acknowledging this, 91% of the 800 facilities contacted agreed to illegally conceal it. Representatives of these organizations—often operating on tax dollars—routinely instructed a child who they believed to be a sexual assault victim to:
• lie about or conceal her age
• lie about or conceal the age of the man who impregnated her
• participate in illegal activity in order to circumvent the state’s parental notification law
• use a fictitious name, phone number or address when she came to the facility
• keep the situation hidden by altering what she would say when she came to the facility
• be more careful about what information she gave out and to whom
Many clinic representatives told the caller that they deal with this situation “all the time” and that the advice they were giving her is the way they normally handle it. Any way you cut it, we caught these people red-handed. The tapes from our investigation prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation are running a nationwide pedophile protection racket. To read our complete report on this issue, take your blood pressure medicine and go to ChildPredators.com.
The reality is, we have an epidemic of child sexual abuse in this country. The most reliable studies show that among girls 15 and younger who get pregnant in the United States, 60% to 80% are impregnated by adults. We also know that 15 to 19 year old girls have the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in the country and that the majority were contracted from adult men. The evidence goes on and on but it always leads to the same conclusion. Underage girls are being sexually abused at a rate that is unprecedented in American history.
I would also point out that facilities which offer pregnancy tests, STD treatments, birth control and abortions are, by far, the most common places these girls are going to show up. So while the situation in Eldorado affects only a tiny fraction of the potential child sexual abuse victims in America, Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities see them by the tens-of-thousands every year. Yet we have been spectacularly unsuccessful in getting law enforcement to investigate the undeniable fact that these two organizations are openly flaunting every state’s mandatory reporting laws. As amazing as it sounds, in the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, when pro-lifers bring this up to the authorities – they threaten the pro-lifers! What we have discovered is that most law enforcement agencies in this country are simply afraid of the abortion lobby.
The bottom line is, America’s epidemic of child sexual abuse is a national disgrace and the response of law enforcement to it is a scandal. I challenge anyone to show me the difference between an adult who chooses to ignore the sexual abuse of children in the FLDS facility, and the law enforcement official who chooses not to enforce laws designed to protect children who end up at Planned Parenthood or the National Abortion Federation. Like I said, it’s a national scandal.
After the media declared John McCain the Republican nominee, two very revealing things happened. First, Mike Huckabee gave a concession speech that was not only gracious but inspiring. About midway through, he began to talk about the issues he considered to be the most important ones facing our country. The first one he mentioned was protecting the right to life of the unborn. Later in the evening, Senator McCain took to the air to acknowledge his victory. Like Huckabee, he also gave a laundry list of what he considers the important issues of the day. But unlike Huckabee, he never once mentioned the plight of the unborn.
McCain’s cold indifference should serve as a reminder to the pro-life movement of why it is so abysmally foolish for us to put any faith in the Republican Party. To begin with, the gated-community, limousine liberals who control the GOP have no interest in the abortion issue. These people are motivated by money and self-interest, and there is simply no money or self-interest in saving babies. Over the years, their attitude toward the pro-life movement is roughly the same as it would be toward a cockroach they might step on during a 3am trip to the bathroom.
Additionally, even if they were interested in the abortion battle, they are totally unsuited for it. Since the day this struggle began, it has never been an ivory-tower debate by people in plaid smoking jackets with elbow patches. And it never will be. Instead, it is the political equivalent of a brawl in a waterfront bar. The problem is, while McCain is indeed a war hero, the Republican Party as a whole is made up of a bunch of guys whose mammas used to dress them for college. On a fraternity dare, they might go into a waterfront bar, but when the first punch is thrown the only thing you can be certain of is that you’re about to hear the unmistakable pitter-patter of fine leather wingtips stampeding toward the door.
On the other hand, this is exactly the kind of fight their opponents relish. It is hardly a secret that, since the 1960s, the Democrat Party has devolved into a political sanctuary for every brand of godless pervert, social misfit and moral degenerate in America. Naturally, this is reflected in the kind of candidates they run for office. In a political bar fight, they are completely amoral people who will lie, cheat, steal, or wallow in the filthiest cesspool if that’s what it takes to win. In a nutshell, they are the kind of scorched-earth activists who scare the Republicans to death.
The point is, the Democrats are almost always wrong on social issues and will fight to the death for them, while the Republicans are generally right on the issues but don’t care enough to fight. Of course, in both cases, the results for the unborn are the same.
If my fellow pro-lifers want to support McCain as some sort of lesser-of-evils salvage operation, so be it. But right now, the pro-life movement needs to be real clear about one thing. Whoever wins in November, it won’t be us. We’ve already lost. My suggestion is that we not wait around until after the election to acknowledge that fact. This is not the time to put the pro-life effort on hold; it is the time to decide how we are going to proceed. Over 3000 babies are dying every day and they can’t afford for us to be patient. At this moment, our job is to figure out how to stop the killing without any help from the Republican Party. The good news is, for the last 35 years we’ve been proving that we can do just that. We just didn’t realize it.
If the last 35 years have proven nothing else, they have at least shown that, in the American political arena, the pro-life movement is the cheapest date in town.
The system works something like this. Along about election time, we can always expect a call from the nation's political hacks - mostly Republicans. They don't really like being seen in public with us, but if they want to get elected they don't have a choice. So they kiss us on the ear and whisper how much they love us. But, they promise nothing and we demand nothing because we know our place. So once our election-cycle dream date is over, we go back and dutifully wait by the phone until they want us again. And as this pathetic act is repeated every couple of years, the killing continues.
I think the time has come for the pro-life movement to set some new ground rules. We can start by making it clear that the days are over when politicians can finesse the abortion issue by giving us their philosophical position. Our new instruction to these people should be that we have no interest in what they “feel” or “think” or “believe” about abortion. None. All we want to know is (a) do they believe that an unborn child is a “person” from the moment of fertilization and, thus, entitled to have his or her life protected by the Constitution and (b) if so, what is their plan to return legal protection to every one of these children?”
That’s it! That’s all we want to hear. Anyone who answers the first question with anything other than an unapologetic and unqualified “Yes” is not pro-life. As for the second question, we instantly dismiss any response that mentions “reducing the need for abortion” or “lowering the unwanted pregnancy rate” or “creating a culture of life,” etcetera. We bought that sort of mealy-mouthed political gibberish in the past, but no more.
If you think I am off base for saying that a politician's “position” on abortion is meaningless, consider this. If you went into a state penitentiary and interviewed every serial rapists incarcerated there, you would find that a significant number would tell you that rape is wrong and that they understood so when they did it. We also know that a certain percentage of these same people would rape again if released. So obviously, what they “believe” about rape does not affect their actions and, in the end, that’s all that matters to the victims.
That same dynamic applies here. What politicians “believe” about abortion doesn't help the unborn until it becomes action. Look at it this way, if the economy was in the tank, we would not allow a politician to simply tell us that he “believes” in a sound economy. We'd demand to know what his plan is for fixing it. It’s time we insisted on at least that much for the unborn.
The next thing we need to do is inform these politicians that we are going to be single issue voters. Simply put, when a candidate is wrong on the slaughter of helpless children, his or her position on other issues is irrelevant. For too long, the pro-life movement has bought the lie that we should not have litmus tests. That is nonsense. There are many perfectly legitimate litmus tests and anyone who claims not to have any is either lying or is devoid of personal convictions.
Think about it. A politician could be attractive, intelligent, experienced and have all the right answers to the important issues of the day, but if he was found to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan, that would certainly be a litmus test. If it were discovered that a fully qualified politician had written a law review article saying women should not be allowed to vote, that too would be a litmus test. You can also bet that if a politician said that the terrorists who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center had legitimate reasons for doing so, his or her position on other issues would be irrelevant. Actually, if you really want to understand about litmus tests and single-issue voting, imagine that a politician admitted that his primary reason for seeking office was to raise taxes on every voter? Do you honestly think this person could be “right enough” on every other issue to make up for that?
The point is, if we are serious about protecting the unborn, this is the standard we must start demanding for the politicians we support. And that is true even when the political office being sought is unrelated to abortion. If we truly believe that abortion is the intentional execution of helpless children, we must also acknowledge that any politician who is pro-choice is not morally qualified to be dogcatcher.
In Kansas, the political landscape continues to get more bizarre. To bring you up to date, a few years back Attorney General, Phill Kline, announced an investigation into whether abortion clinics are in violation of the state’s child sexual abuse reporting laws and the state’s regulations involving late-term abortion. In response, Kansas filled up with high-dollar legal talent from out-of-state pro-abortion groups and they brought with them the knowledge that whatever money is needed, is available. Despite that, however, as the legal machinations ebbed to and fro, it was clear that things could go badly for them.
When Kline indicted notorious late-term abortionist, George “The Killer” Tiller, on 30 criminal charges, the district attorney in Sedgewick County, Nola Foulston, was able to pull a legal maneuver to get the charges dismissed. As an outspoken proponent of legalized abortion and a personal friend of Tiller’s, Foulston was simply doing what any other corrupt political puppet of the abortion lobby would be expected to do. But everyone knew that this “fix” was only temporary. The charges could be refiled at any time and in a way that would be insulated from Foulston. This meant that Tiller, not to mention his competitors at Planned Parenthood, were still in trouble.
Cue Paul Morrison, the district attorney in Johnson County. Bankrolled with hundreds-of-thousands of dollars from his good friend, George Tiller, Morrison ran against and defeated Klein for re-election. Then, to no one’s surprise, he immediately fired the special prosecutor Kline had appointed to pursue the investigation of Tiller and Planned Parenthood.
The message was clear: when the Kansas abortion mafia buys a politician, they expect results. And the Foulston/Morrison gang did not disappoint. But unfortunately for them, the matter did not end there. Currently, a citizen-led grand jury has been seated to investigate the charges and that panel operates outside the influences of people like Nola Foulston and Paul Morrison.
Meanwhile, the story takes a new twist. It seems that Morrison has been, shall we say, fishing off the company pier. He has now been charged with sexual harassment stemming from an extramarital affair he admitted he had with one of his employees in the Johnson County district attorney’s office. Linda Carter, the office’s director of administration, revealed extensive details about their two-year relationship that, as might be expected, are juicy enough to fire-up a Jerry Springer audience. She also says that the affair continued after Morrison was elected Attorney General and that he pressured her to use her position in the D.A.’s office to influence pending litigation involving Phill Kline. She refused. Apparently, despite whatever personal warts she may have, Linda Carter is no Nola Foulston.
Like most Americans, I have some profound reservations about the broad definitions of sexual harassment used in our society today. Many of them have been so preposterous that they cause people to see the entire issue of sexual harassment as nonsensical. The effect of that has been to diminish the validity of claims made by people who truly are victims.
Having said that, it appears that Ms. Carter may have initially resisted Morrison’s advances and only succumbed after repeated pressure. If it turns out that she finally gave in simply because she thought a little roll in the hay might be fun, she has no claim to victim status. However, if she gave in because she had a legitimate reason to believe that not doing so would affect her employment, then the relationship was less an affair than it was a capitulation. Time will tell if that was the situation but, if it was, then Morrison is in over his head.
It is also coming out that Morrison has a history of this sort of thing. That, coupled with Carter’s claim that Morrison leaned on her to influence litigation involving Kline, raises two interesting issues.
First, this case puts those leftist groups who inevitably take the side of any woman who raises sexual harassment claims between a rock and a hard place. Although this story has exploded across Kansas, these groups have remained uncharacteristically silent. They have apparently figured out that it would be dicey for them to assert that Ms. Carter is telling the truth about the sexual harassment but lying when she says that her pro-choice harasser committed a crime to protect the abortion industry. So their response has been to just punt and let Ms. Carter take her chances under the bus.
Second, I have always speculated that the abortion industry keeps files on its high-profile customers–especially politicians–that could be used to “keep them in line” in the future. If a customer is a publicly known woman, or says she is pregnant by a publicly known man, or is the daughter/wife/granddaughter of a public family, etcetera, evidence of an abortion would be good leverage to keep on hand. Bill Clinton could be a perfect example of what I am talking about. During his presidency, even his admirers complained that he was not always loyal to the people and special interest groups who helped put him in office. The sole exception to this is the abortion lobby. For eight years, this was the only constituency he never once double-crossed.
Consider that fact within the context of Clinton’s history. Gennifer Flowers always maintained that, in 1977, Clinton gave her $200 to have an abortion. Clinton denied that the abortion occurred and, in fact, denied that he even had an affair with Flowers. When that turned out to be a lie, it is certainly no stretch to then conclude that his denial of the abortion was also untrue. Given what we now know about this guy, it is also no stretch to speculate that Flowers’ abortion was not the only one. To the contrary, the smart money would be that his political career was salvaged more than once when one of his babies was snuffed-out at some abortion clinic.
It is also perfectly reasonable to assume that (a) the files associated with whatever abortions Clinton may have been responsible for are sitting in the desk of a Washington, DC, abortion-industry lobbyist and (b) Slick Willy understood that any betrayal of their agenda by him could result in these files ending up on some reporter’s desk.
This same phenomenon may explain the abysmal level of corruption we’ve seen when it comes to George Tiller, Planned Parenthood and anyone else involved with the Kansas abortion lobby. Simply put, their influence is far more broad and deep than could be reasonably expected in a middle-America state. I guess you could say that when it comes to Kansas politicians, the abortion cartel knows where the skeletons are buried. After all, they helped to bury them.