And the Beat Goes On

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-Life: What Does it Mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Saving Women is Really the Goal . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Scam of Moral Irrelevance

Have you ever noticed that every time the Godless Left promotes any of the moral depravities that they hold so dear, a predictable pattern develops. 

Whatever their “vice du jour” might be, their initial sales pitch will be that it is morally acceptable.  Of course, this inevitably fails because whatever they are pushing is generally so ghastly that it is impossible to sell it on its own merits.  So their fall-back strategy is to play the old “you can’t legislate morality” card.  They will even wrap it around some absurd interpretation of American history in which our founding fathers sacrificed their lives and treasure so we could all live in a nation where laws are made free of any moral considerations.  Then, for good measure, they will toss in something about the constitutional separation of church and state, despite the fact that such a concept is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. 

Sadly, this scam often works.  America is in such a state of moral and intellectual decay that otherwise decent intelligent people actually suck-up this loopy philosophy.  It is part of the culture of “situational ethics” in which genuine ethics are seen as abnormal and perhaps even unpatriotic.  In our brave new world of unfettered tolerance and moral-relativism, it is not enough to believe that some things are not black and white but shades of gray; you must now believe that everything is a shade of gray and that black and white do not exist.  This philosophy thrives because the American people have become so open-minded that their brains fell out.     

Here are the facts:  No governmental body can pass laws that will make an immoral person moral.  So they don’t try.  Legislation is not about regulating beliefs, it’s about controlling behavior.  When a legislature passes laws against racial discrimination, it does not concern itself with the personal moral beliefs of people who sincerely think racial discrimination is okay.  The legislature has determined that discrimination is not morally acceptable and, therefore, it will not be legally permitted regardless of what some racist might think.  In other words, society imposes its belief system on someone who has a completely different belief system.  Any way you look at it, that is legislating morality.   

So don’t let the Godless Left fool you.  The law is nothing more or less than society’s collective moral values, and it legislates that morality by regulating behavior.  At the moment we abandon that principal, our legislative bodies will be left with no legitimate foundation upon which any law can be justified.  If that happens, our country will be doomed to collapse into a state of bedlam and anarchy.

Quindlen’s Latest Lie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Little Perspective, Please

As most of you probably know by now, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal ban on D&X (partial-birth) abortion is constitutional.  The question is: just how significant is this victory for the overall effort to protect the unborn?

From a psychological standpoint, this is clearly an enormous shot in the arm for the pro-life movement.  To fully appreciate the significance of this ruling, all you have to do is imagine what the effect would have been on our people had it gone the other way.  The fact is, after years of being pummeled in the courts this decision puts a little wind back in our sails.        

Equally important, it appears to have truly demoralized our enemies.  Some are wringing their ice-cold little hands and wailing that the end of legalized abortion is near.  Apparently, the prospect of living in a world in which moms are not allowed to butcher their children by the millions has caused a large percentage of these people to start sleeping with the lights on.   

Meanwhile, more optimistic members of the Choice Mafia are threatening to turn this ruling into a rallying cry to re-energize their troops.  Only time will tell whether they are able to do this or not.  My prediction is that this ruling will not energize anyone other than the most rabid abortion enthusiasts and their numbers are so small as to be inconsequential.  But however it plays out, this decision is further proof that the pro-life side has the momentum and our enemies know it.

Beyond its positive psychological impact, the ban on partial-birth abortion is meaningless as it relates to the actual killing of unborn children.  That’s because this ban controls the how, not the whether.  Remember, even during the time that this procedure was allowed, most late-term abortions were accomplished using other methods – the most common being D&E.  Unfortunately, D&E and all of these other procedures are still legal which means that any baby who would have been killed by partial-birth abortion before will now be killed by one of these other methods. 

Some pro-lifers argue that the practical benefit of a ban on partial-birth abortion is that it prohibits a procedure that is especially barbaric.  Such people are poorly informed.  Be assured, anyone who thinks that a D&E is less brutal for the child being killed than a D&X knows nothing about abortion procedures.

In the final analysis, the psychological importance of this victory for the pro-life movement is enormous but its practical implications for the unborn are zero.  The real unknown is whether this Supreme Court ruling is a barometer for abortion rulings to come.   

Many observers have noted that there was some encouraging language in the majority opinion to indicate a willingness by the Court to reconsider Roe vs. Wade.  Others counter that it was a 5-4 decision in which one vote (Kennedy’s) cannot be relied upon in the future.  In my view, each conclusion is equally valid and equally irrelevant. 

I will say this as succinctly as I can.  Trying to predict what the United States Supreme Court will or will not do is a fool’s game.  The reality is, when the Court abandoned the Constitution as the basis for its rulings – which it did years ago – by definition it became totally unpredictable.  Today, if there is one thing we know for certain about Supreme Court decisions it is that anyone with a Ouija Board can predict them as accurately as the most educated legal minds in the country.       

So my advice is (a) pause for a moment to celebrate the victory, (b) don’t read more into it than is actually there, and (c) get back to work. 

Babies are still dying.

A Healthy Regret

The South Carolina legislature is considering a bill to require that every woman seeking an abortion be shown a sonogram of her unborn baby before the abortion is performed.  Naturally, the choice mafia is fighting this legislation viciously, having long ago recognized that it’s better to keep their customers in the dark until the money is in the bank. 

One important benefit of this legislation is its ability to reduce emotional trauma in women.  Today, all across America, post-aborted women are coming forward to say how much they regret their decision to have an abortion.  In fact, there is a rapidly growing organization of these women called Silent No More Awareness.  Many of the women involved with this group say that if they had seen an ultrasound image of their baby before the abortion, they would have made a different decision.   

The abortion lobby responds by claiming that most women don't regret their abortions.  Of course, they offer no proof of this, but even if it is true it is irrelevant.  Lack of regret relates to the morality and the conscience of the person acting not to the rightness of the act.  If some pervert sexually assaults his neighbor's five-year-old daughter, whether he regrets it or not has nothing to do with the fact that it is indefensible for grown men to have sex with five-year-old girls. 

Now, if we really want to see the role that regret plays in the abortion issue, I suggest we survey women who have dealt with unplanned pregnancies in their past.  Let's ask those who aborted if they now wish that they had given birth, and ask those who gave birth if they now wish they had aborted.  In fact, let's challenge the abortion lobby to start publicly identifying women who allowed their children to be born but now say they wish they had killed them through abortion.  The result will be that for every such woman they trot out, we could produce an avalanche of women who are living with debilitating guilt and regret over their abortions.    

Needless to say, abortion defenders are never going to accept this challenge, but that doesn't really matter.  My point is proven by the fact that there are literally thousands of support groups in the United States to help women overcome the emotional train wreck of abortion, but no one has found it necessary to start even one support group to help women deal with the emotional trauma of letting their children live. 

That's because there is no psychological trauma associated with not killing your child.  After more than 30 years of legalized abortion, the one thing we know for certain is that regrets about abortion are only experienced by women who have them, not by those who don't.

When women come forward to express their anguish over abortion, many reveal that they have needed years of counseling in order to deal with the guilt and regret of their decision.  In other cases, it is obvious that these women are still traumatized by their abortions and may be so for the rest of their lives.  In a breathtaking display of gall, some abortion defenders say that the pro-life movement is responsible for these emotional problems.  Their argument is that these women would be fine if it were not for us constantly harping about abortion being the murder of a baby and showing pictures of the corpses.  Apparently, these people not only prefer their customers to be in the dark before their abortions they would also like them to be kept there afterwards.  They probably figure that having a bunch of women running around the country crying about their abortions could be bad for business.    

For those abortion defenders who do not promote this “ignorance is bliss / the pro-lifers are to blame” philosophy, the normal reaction to women who say they were emotionally injured by abortion is to simply dismiss them.   Some claim these women had emotional problems before their abortions, while others assert that they developed their problems afterwards for reasons that had nothing to do with abortion.  To date, no one has explained how these people know all this.  Evidently, the rest of us are supposed to just blindly accept that the more enlightened members of our society (ie: those who are pro-choice) intuitively understand that emotional trauma following abortion is some sort of cosmic coincidence that only befalls women who were already a little loopy to begin with.

Meanwhile, the hidden irony in all this is that women who regret their abortions may actually be more mentally healthy than those who don't.  Think about it this way.  In modern America it would be all but impossible for any sane and intelligent person to be unaware of the biological fact that abortion causes the death of a child.  Given that, it is certainly reasonable to speculate that any woman who could submit to abortion and not be emotionally traumatized by the experience is either abysmally stupid, a psychopath, or someone with profound psychological problems.

This also applies to those people who have encouraged, arranged for, referred for, facilitated or forced women to have abortions.  Just because they may not express – or even feel – regret over the children they helped to execute, they are as responsible for their deaths as the women who climbed onto the tables and put their feet in the stirrups.  In fact, in some cases they are even more responsible.  The woman may have been tricked or forced; the same defense cannot be made for the enablers. 

In the final analysis, the question is whether America has degenerated into the kind of place in which adults can hire serial killers to butcher helpless children, have no remorse about it, and still claim to be both morally and mentally healthy.  If that is where we are, then ours is truly a nation without hope.  Only God knows – and only time will tell – if that is the situation.  Until then, the pro-life movement will continue to fight this holocaust with all the resolution and commitment necessary for victory. 

As for the significance of regret or lack thereof, we should remember that Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows saying he had no regrets about his role in the Nazi holocaust.  However, his cold-blooded lack of remorse did not justify the slaughter of millions who perished in Germany's death camps.  Nor will anyone's cold-blooded lack of remorse over abortion justify the slaughter that continues to claim millions in America's death camps.

Counting the Costs

Today, the American holocaust is 34-years-old and, so far, it has claimed about 50 million victims.  These children had committed no crime, they were given no trial, there was no judge, no jury, no appeal, and no stay of execution.  They were simply carried into an American death camp and killed.  

It is easy to expose the incoherent logic used by the Supreme Court to justify its Roe vs. Wade decision.  We can also make a perfect case that the justices responsible for it – and those who have reaffirmed it since – were not just wrong, but willfully evil.

However, what is often overlooked about Roe vs. Wade its implied suggestion that a nation can execute millions of innocent human beings without consequence.  That assumption is a testament to the unfettered stupidity of man.  There is always a price to pay for tolerating evil. 

Think about this.  Those of us who are baby boomers didn't give America legalized abortion.  The 1973 Supreme Court was made up exclusively of people from the World War Two generation.  However, it has been baby boomers who have had the most abortions. 

Now shortly, we'll be reaching retirement age in numbers that are going to financially overwhelm the Social Security and healthcare systems.  And so the question becomes: in a nation that morally bankrupted itself by using child sacrifice to address social problems, why would any solution to the social problems created by the elderly be unthinkable? 

After all, if we believe God was serious when he said that man reaps what he sows, we cannot ignore the fact that a generation which killed one quarter of its own children because it saw them as inconvenient, unhealthy or expensive, is about to become inconvenient, unhealthy and expensive itself.

Like I said, evil always has a cost. 

Hey, Hey, Were the Monkeys

In Spain, the ruling Socialist party has proposed legislation in parliament that would grant personhood status to primates and give them the same moral and legal protections currently reserved only for humans. 

Their rationale is that the genetic code for a human is 98.4 percent the same as a chimpanzee, 97.7 percent the same as a gorilla and 96.4 percent the same as an orangutan.  Interestingly, elective abortion is legal in Spain which means that the unborn are not seen as persons despite the fact that their genetic code is 100 percent the same as a human.  In fact ... they are human! 

That aside, we assume that if this legislation is enacted it will expand the “right to choose” to include the country’s politically influential monkey population.  After all, it doesn’t seem fair to discriminate against our knuckle-dragging cousins simply because their ancestors chose to remain monkeys while ours decided to swing down out of the trees, stand upright, and morph into human beings.

Tiller Charged, Cover-Up Begins

In 2002, a Life Dynamics undercover sting produced irrefutable evidence that the American abortion industry is operating a nationwide pedophile protection ring (see:

When this information was made public, the Attorney General of Kansas, Phill Kline, became the first attorney general in the nation with the courage to launch an investigation.  Although the abortion lobby carried out a vicious and deceptive campaign to derail Kline's investigation, at a December 22 news conference, lawyers for notorious Kansas abortionist, George Tiller, announced that Kline had filed 30 criminal charges against Tiller, most of which relate to abortions he performed on underage children.

These indictments were based on records subpoenaed from Tiller and show that the overwhelming majority of the abortions were performed on patients who were between 25 and 28 weeks pregnant.  However, two of the charges involve patients who were 31 weeks pregnant at the time of their procedures.  In what is probably the most troubling incident, Count Three of the indictment is based on an abortion Tiller performed in July of 2003 on a 10-year-old girl who was 28 weeks pregnant. 

In addition, not one of the records indicated any physical health problems with either the mom or the baby.  In every case, the justification given for killing the baby was either “stress” or “depression.”  In short, according to Tiller’s own files, these were purely elective third-trimester abortions performed on healthy moms to destroy healthy babies. And in most cases they were performed on minor children.

When the story about these criminal charges broke, the Kansas abortion lobby immediately began to circle the wagons.  Within a few hours, the District Attorney of Sedgewick County, Nola Foulston, filed a motion to have the charges dismissed claiming that she had not been consulted about them before they were filed, as required by Kansas law.  For the record, Foulston is well-known in Kansas as an outspoken proponent of legalized abortion and a personal friend of Tiller.

Contrary to Foulston's story, Kline says that he did meet with her in her Wichita office prior to filing the charges and that there were three witnesses to the meeting.  He also says that Foulston told him that she had no problem with the charges.

Obviously, somebody is lying.  In order to buy Foulston’s version, you have to first believe that it was just some sort of cosmic coincidence that within minutes after this phantom meeting ended, Foulston filed a motion to dismiss the charges in the court of Democrat Judge Paul W. Clark.

The only logical conclusion is that the meeting did take place and that Foulston lied to Kline to keep him from knowing beforehand that she intended to file this motion.  She had to know that if Kline was given a chance to fight her motion, he would prevail.  Given that, it is no great leap in logic to speculate that she hand-picked a judge she knew would let her keep Kline in the dark until the hearing was over, thereby preventing him from being present and defending his position.

Of course, the best evidence that this was the plan is the fact that, in the end, it is precisely what happened.  In a hastily convened legal proceeding in which one of the primary parties was excluded, Clark approved Foulston’s motion and dismissed the charges.  For those who may be tempted to challenge the assertion that Clark was hand-picked for this job, it should be noted that the Sedgewick County website lists Clark as a traffic court judge.  The fact is, the fix was in and Clark was going to show Foulston and the rest of the Kansas abortion mafia that he was a company man.  

Kline’s reaction to this scam was to demand that another hearing be held.  The good news was that his request was granted.  The bad news was that this new hearing was directed right back into Clark’s traffic court.

When the lawyer representing the Attorney General’s office finished his argument, Clark immediately reissued his initial ruling which he read from a prepared written text.  In other words, he walked into the courtroom with his ruling already made.  Listening to Kline’s legal argument was nothing more than a politically-necessary formality.  It was not going to change anything.

In the days after this sleazy stunt was pulled, legal scholars appearing on national television pointed out that the Kansas law in question clearly shows that Kline has the legal right to bring such charges, despite the claims of Foulston and Clark.  These experts had also read the charges Kline brought against Tiller and found that they were correctly filled and fully supported by evidence subpoenaed from Tiller himself.  One even went so far as to indicate that he was totally bewildered how Clark could come to his ruling since the law was so clear and unambiguous.

Looking back, it is now clear that Foulston’s and Clark’s actions were nothing more than a stall.  They were aware that Kline had lost his bid for re-election and that his successor, Paul Morrison, is a raging pro-abort whose campaign took hundreds-of-thousands of dollars from Tiller.  So their strategy was to use this phony legal maneuver to keep Kline at bay until his term ran out.  Even if some higher court were to rule that Foulston’s motion was groundless and Clark’s ruling improper, it wouldn’t matter as long as the ruling came after January 8, 2007 – the day Kline has to turn over the attorney general’s office to Tiller’s buddy.

Kline’s reaction was to appoint a special prosecutor, attorney Don McKinney, who can continue the effort to hold George Tiller accountable even after Kline leaves office. The only question is whether he will be given the chance to do so.  It is entirely conceivable – perhaps even likely – that the new pro-abortion attorney general will fire McKinney as a political payoff to Tiller.    

In the final analysis, this sorry episode is just more proof that the abortion mafia – which in this case includes a godless and corrupt district attorney – is always prepared to lie, cheat, steal, and wallow in even the filthiest cesspool in order to keep America’s death camps churning out victims.

But whatever happens, the good news is that this opera ain’t over.  The evidence against Tiller is building and the day is rapidly approaching when even his most loyal media and political flunkeys will be unable to cover his tracks. Whether or not Attorney General Kline is successful in getting the charges reinstated before he leaves office, and whether or not the special prosecutor is fired by his pro-abortion successor, the abortion lobby’s frantic and desperate response to this situation shows that Tiller is surviving on little more than sips of hope.

So stay tuned.  The fat lady is warming up.

A Tale of Two Rivers

We have all seen situations in which some problem appears to have an obvious solution that is being ignored. When this happens in the political arena, we tend to dismiss it as being the fault of "the system." The more likely explanation is that some "dirty little secret" lurks in the shadows that we don't know about and our political leaders don't want us to know about.

Such is the case with the debate over illegal immigration. Today, some politicians are strutting around calling for round-ups and border fences, while others hawk guest-worker programs, amnesty, or instant citizenship. Despite all this grandstanding, both camps are fully aware that these proposals will never solve the problem.

The real solution is to pass legislation making it a federal crime (with mandatory jail time) to knowingly employ someone who is in this country illegally. Although similar laws are already in place, there is a loophole. As long as the worker has a social security number, the employer is off the hook whether that number is legitimate or not. What we need is legislation requiring employers to confirm that anyone they hire is legally eligible to work in the United States. They could do this by simply accessing a government-sponsored system that would instantly tell them whether the prospective employee's social security number is legitimate. Such a system would be easy to create and less cumbersome than the one that currently allows a merchant to authorize a customer's credit card.

The obvious advantage here is that the first time some corporate CEO or small-time roofing contractor violates this law and ends up on the evening news in handcuffs and leg-irons, the illegal immigration problem is history. At that point, our biggest task would be unsnarling the traffic jams on the southbound lanes of Interstate 35.

The reason Congress isn't pursuing this painfully obvious solution becomes clear when we analyze the financial tsunami that is rolling toward the United States.

Very shortly, America's baby boomers will start reaching retirement age and they will do so at the rate of about 10,000 per day for the next 18 years. Contrary to what most people seem to think, the money baby boomers are owed through social security is long gone. Over the years, Congress grabbed it, left an IOU in its place, and squandered it to buy votes.

In the [2000] presidential election, Al Gore blathered endlessly about the need for a "lock box" to protect the funds being held by the social security system. He was lying. He knows good and well that there is no need for such a lock box because Congress has been running a Ponzi scheme with social security and there is no money left to protect. The result is that the day is rapidly approaching when younger taxpayers will be forced to send boxcars full of their money to the government in order to pay for services that were already paid for once. Any way you cut it, the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the baby boomers are going to be taxed into oblivion replacing the money that was stolen by Congress.

That's where abortion comes in. The designers of social security based it on an assumption of an ever-growing, or at least stabile, workforce. They could not foresee that America would one day legalize the wholesale slaughter of its own children. But on January 22, 1973, that is precisely what happened. The result has been that at least one-fourth of the taxpayers needed to replace the money baby boomers paid into the system, were wiped out before drawing their first breath. Moreover, for every day the American holocaust continues, another 3300 future taxpayers are executed in the womb. To appreciate the impact of this, consider that since abortion has been legal, birth rates in the United States have often been below population replacement levels. In fact, if one removes immigration from the census figures, America's population has been flat or, by some estimates, in decline. For the social security system, that has been a disaster waiting to happen and the wait is just about over.

Today, there is a vigorous national debate going on about whether illegal immigrants are only taking jobs American workers don't want anyway. That may or may not be true. However, it is undeniable that illegal immigrants are replacing workers who were killed through abortion.

To understand the significance of this, it is necessary to dispel a myth. Most people seem to believe that illegal workers are only paid in cash and, therefore, pay no taxes or social security. That is not true. According to experts in this field, most illegal immigrants get their jobs by using counterfeit social security cards purchased on the black market. This means that taxes and social security are deducted from their checks. But since they are illegal, no matter how much they pay into the social security system, they can never take money out of it. This is what makes illegal immigration such a bonanza for Congress.

In recent years, the amount of money paid into the system that will never be paid out in benefits has become so large that the government now factors it into Social Security Administration projections. In fact, the IRS has even assigned this fund a name. It's called the "earnings suspense file" and it currently brings in between six and seven billion dollars a year. The IRS says that about three-fourths of this money comes from the paychecks of illegal immigrants. Some independent sources claim the percentage is higher.

Ironically, this has created a situation in which a minimum wage illegal immigrant working on a fake social security card and paying little in social security, is ultimately more valuable to the system than a high-income legal worker who pays in the maximum. That's because legal workers generally get more back from social security than they pay in, while illegal workers operating on phony social security cards get back nothing.

When it comes to illegal immigration, this is the "dirty little secret" America's politicians don't want you to know. It is also why this debate about whether or not illegal workers should be given some sort of legal status is such a waste of time. For Congress, only illegal immigrants are an asset. The instant they are made legal, they become an enormous liability. So make no mistake about it, they will remain illegal.

Naturally, there are people who will challenge my suggestion that the government makes a profit off illegal immigration. They will point out that the American people are being forced to spend astronomical amounts of money on education, medical care, law enforcement, welfare, etc. for people who are in the country illegally.

They are correct. There is indeed a large and expanding catalogue of financial burdens linked to illegal immigration. What is overlooked, however, is that the overwhelming majority of these expenses are born by the states, while the social security deducted from the paychecks of illegal workers goes only to the feds.

In effect, illegal immigration has become a pipeline for transferring money from the states to the federal government. So even if the overall financial burden of illegal immigration far exceeds its benefits to the social security system, since the states pay most of the expenses and the feds get all of the revenue, Congress has a vested interest in not rocking the boat. Given that Congress is the one that makes immigration policy, it's a safe bet that any changes are going to be little more than superficial.

The bottom line is that the illegal immigration issue has less to do with people crossing the Rio Grande than it does with the 535 grifters camped out on the Potomac. Every member of Congress knows that they can stop illegal immigration, but they also know that doing so would expose the social security scam they've been running. That's why their "strategy" for dealing with this issue has been to tap-dance around it and trust that the media and the public will eventually become distracted by something else.

Of course, the link between illegal immigration and social security is just a symptom. The disease is legalized abortion and its assumption that we can savagely execute innocent human beings without consequence. In 1973, America bought that lie and, now, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Of course, the fallout from the legalization of abortion will ultimately go far beyond the costs of illegal immigration. Let's not forget that a generation that killed its own children whenever it found them inconvenient, unhealthy or expensive will soon be inconvenient, unhealthy and expensive itself. At that point, we will likely find that when a society morally bankrupts itself by legalizing abortion, it is then conditioned to solve the financial and social problems created by an aging population by methods which previous generations would have considered unthinkable. Maybe then we will understand that God was serious when He said that we reap what we sow.

More Entries

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics