Why the Hurry?

January 20, 2009, began with every American living under a system of government that was birthed in the blood of patriots.  But by the following morning, duly elected political anarchists had already begun the process of dismantling this 230 year-old form of government.  The world’s Marxists had always bragged that they would eventually conquer us without firing a shot and now it was happening. 

 

Today, it is not only the nature of this coup that stuns traditional Americans but the blinding speed at which it is occurring.  The American people are not just seeing things take place that they could not have imagined 50 years ago; they are seeing things take place that they could not have imagined one year ago.

 

The question is, what’s the rush?  Why is the Obama administration pushing this agenda at a rate that defies all political logic–even to the point of strong-arming their fellow Democrats into supporting wildly unpopular policies that could destroy their political futures?     

 

My suspicion is that the Obamanista’s scorched-earth approach is being driven by a dirty little secret they know about the coalition that gave them victory in 2008.  In a nutshell, I think they are deeply concerned about one of its key members. 

 

The conventional thinking is that this coalition was made up of African-Americans, white liberals and anti-Bush independents.  Another big-time player, of course, was the “Kool-Aid-drinkers” who were swept up in the feeding frenzy created by the media. 

 

When it comes to 2012, the Democrats are not worried about the African-American vote or the support of white liberals.  They are also confident that the mindless cult-like mentailty shown by the “Kool-Aid-drinkers” is not likely to be cured.  The one fly in the punchbowl is that, as the image of George Bush shrinks in the rearview mirror, Obama is losing the ability to use him as a bogyman.  This could cause Obama’s appeal among independents to plummet and, in fact, there is some evidence this is already happening. 

 

It is the responsibility of high-priced consultants and political gurus to keep all these factions on the reservation and maybe they can.  But even if they are able to do so, my theory is that the Obamanistas are aware that there is another member of their 2008 coalition which may not be onboard in 2012.  This group is what I call “Purgers.”

 

These are white voters who supported Barack Obama in order to rid the country of the stain of racism.  For this particular group, voting for Obama was not about politics; it was about purging themselves of the guilt of slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and every other vestige of racial intolerance.  They thought that by electing a black man president, we could show that the days of racism were behind us.  It didn’t matter whether this was reality or not; what mattered was the perception that it was true.  I’m not convinced that these people really cared whether Obama won or not.  As long as they voted for him, they proved–at least to themselves–that they weren’t racist.  In effect, they replaced the old, “I’m not a racist, some of my best friends are black” mantra with, “I’m not a racist, I voted for Obama.”  Besides, Obama represented a “safe” vote because he was not perceived as some sort of “race-pimp” like a Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton.   

 

In any event, an Obama sticker on the back bumper of a car was irrefutable proof that the driver was not a racist.  That may explain why even here in North Texas, which is not exactly a hotspot of Obama mania, you see far more Obama stickers still on cars than McCain stickers.

 

The irony is, at the moment these “Purgers” pulled the lever for Obama, they no longer needed him.  In their minds, whatever degree of personal guilt they felt evaporated.  However, the point they were trying to make by voting for Obama, does not require them to vote for him twice.  This means that in 2012, the Democrats will have to keep these voters in the coalition through policy.  The problem is, Obama has already been fully exposed as a hard-line leftist which is a position shared by very few Americans, including Purgers.  The other problem is that, since most modern presidential elections are won and lost on razor sharp margins, even a relatively small defection in Purgers could decimate Obama’s re-election chances. 

 

This phenomenon is probably keeping the Democrats awake at night.  It is also causing the Obamanistas to operate on the assumption that they will only have four years to implement their Marxist agenda.  This means that, given the scale of their plans, they’ve got to act fast and often.  To use a football analogy, they don’t have time to establish a running game; they’ve got to throw the ball deep on every play.  And that is exactly what they are doing.

Tripwire!

“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.

 

Of Diapers and Deficits

Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for the government's economic stimulus package to include a healthy increase in spending for what she called “family planning.”  (If you didn't already know, “family planning” is generally code for abortion.)  Pelosi said that this would save state and federal governments the cost of having to pay for the health care and education of poor children.  Of course, it's pretty hard to argue with that sort of logic.  After all, dead children are less expensive to care for than live children.  

 

In any event, Pelosi's remarks came on the heels of Barak Obama signing an executive order allowing money taken out of the paychecks of American workers to be used for abortions in foreign countries!  In other words, the Obama administration’s position is that we are running out of money to take care of our own children but we have enough to pay for the executions of other people's children.  Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood (America's number one abortion profiteer) continues to be given approximately one million dollars a day in taxpayer funding and there are calls within our government for that amount to be doubled. 

 

So let's recap.  In last year's presidential campaign, Obama labels babies a “punishment” and, now, one of his co-degenerates is claiming that babies contribute to our country’s financial woes.  In this environment, it is probably no coincidence that the abortion lobby is ratcheting up its rhetoric that the faltering economy is a justification for abortion.  The sense of evil is palpable when you hear them almost gleefully predict that the abortion rate is going to increase as women rely on it to compensate for bad economic conditions.  

 

But the question is, are babies really to blame for our economic collapse?  And the answer is that they are.

 

Let me explain.  It has long been known that as consumers approach retirement they spend less money.  The two areas where this is felt the most is in the sales of cars and houses – the two industries that form the backbone of the American economy.  The good news has always been that, as older people began to buy less they were replaced by younger consumers who bought more.  It was a cycle that was repeated from one generation to the next.  But here’s the problem we face today.  The American baby-boomer is the wealthiest generation of people in the history of the world and they spent money like there was no tomorrow.  In that process, they created an economy that was (a) the envy of the world and (b) completely dependant on that level of spending in order to survive. 

 

While doing this, however, they aborted more than one-fourth of the next generation of consumers.  This guaranteed that, once the baby-boomers started reaching retirement, the spending frenzy of the last forty years would be over.  And now, that is precisely what has happened.  In 2008, baby-boomers began reaching retirement age, the sales of cars and houses plummeted and that put the entire economy into a tailspin.  Further, we are just at the very beginning of this phenomenon.  By any realistic measure, there is a financial tsunami rolling toward the United States that will make our current environment seem like “the good ole’ days.”  From now until 2026, baby-boomers are going to reach retirement age at the rate of 10,000 a day!  And even if we learn how to live with less consumer spending, the effect of that is going to bankrupt our social services infrastructure. 

 

One obvious place you can see this is in the area of Social Security.  In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore bored us to near suicide with his incessant droning about the need for a "lock box" to protect the funds being held by the Social Security system.  Of course, he was lying.  He knew good and well that there is no need for such a lock box because Congress was running a Ponzi scheme with Social Security and there is no money left to lock up.  Over the years, Congress grabbed it, left an IOU in its place, and then squandered it to buy votes.  While Bernie Madoff rightly deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, the only differences between Madoff and Congress are that his crimes were on a far smaller scale and he got caught.    

 

Now we’ve reached the day of reckoning.  The money to fulfill the government’s social obligations to the baby-boomers is long-gone.  The result is that we will soon be at a point where younger taxpayers will be forced to send in boxcars full of their money to pay for the services that were promised to them.  The fact that this money has already been collected once is irrelevant.  The children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the baby boomers are going to be taxed into oblivion replacing money that was stolen by Congress.  What most Americans don’t realize is that this problem has been made exponentially worse by abortion.

 

The designers of Social Security based it on an assumption of an ever-growing, or at least stabile, workforce.  They could not have foreseen that America would one day legalize the wholesale slaughter of its own children.  But on January 22, 1973, that’s what happened.  The result has been that, over the last 36 years, over 25 percent of the taxpayers needed to replace the money baby-boomers paid into the system were executed.  To appreciate the impact of this, consider that since abortion has been legal, birth rates in the United States have often been below replacement levels.  In fact, if one removes immigration from the census figures, America's population has been at best flat or, by most reliable estimates, in decline.  For the Social Security system, that has been a disaster waiting to happen and the wait ended in 2008.  Like nations all over the world, America is beginning to discover why the shrinking populations they wanted are a barometer of economic disaster.

 

This reality is also going to have a devastating effect on the Medicare and Medicaid systems.  I think this is probably the main reason why there is this sudden panic in Congress to implement socialized medicine.  They know that the money to take care of the baby-boomers was stolen.  After all, they are the ones who stole it.  But they certainly can’t afford for the voters to find that out, and a perfect way to make sure they don’t is to dump the boomers into to a government run universal healthcare system. 

 

Another way abortion affects the economy is seen in the immigration issue.  Today, there is a vigorous national debate about whether illegal immigrants are only taking jobs American workers don't want anyway.  While that may or may not be true, what is undeniable is that illegal immigrants are replacing the millions of workers who were killed through abortion.  The problem is, beyond the financial burdens that illegal immigration imposes on the U.S. economy, it also contributes to the diminished demand for American consumer goods – including cars and houses.  That’s because a very high percentage of America’s illegal immigrants live in poverty conditions so they can send money back to their families in Mexico.  Over the years, this amount has grown to the point that it is now consistently one of the largest sources of income for the entire Mexican economy.  And any way you look at it, this is money that, without abortion, would have been earned by Americans and spent in America.  But those Americans don’t exist so it ends up being earned by Mexicans and spent in Mexico. 

 

Sadly, this has also eliminated any chance for the Mexican economy to become as strong as it should be.  It is time for someone to point out that there is no reason for Mexico to be a poor country.  It has a wealth of natural resources, a good climate and a population made up of decent hard-working people.  However, it is not possible for any nation to have a vibrant economy while sending millions of its youngest and most productive workers out of the country.

 

In the final analysis, this is a system that costs the American taxpayer trillions of dollars, threatens the stability of the U.S. economy, keeps Mexico poor, and cynically exploits the illegal immigrant.  But it will continue because every member of Congress knows – whether they have the guts to admit it or not – that immigration is the only way to replace the workers who have been aborted.

 

So yes, babies are indeed the cause of our economic collapse.  Not for the reasons the Obamas and Pelosis of the world have you think, but because America has murdered the babies who would have supported our economy and financed our social service obligations.  In 1973, our nation bought the lie that we could savagely execute millions of innocent human beings without consequence and, now, the chickens are coming home to roost. 

 

Having said that, however, we should never reduce the abortion debate to one solely based on economics.  Even if this holocaust had lined our streets in gold, it could still never be justified.  It would serve us well to understand that the fallout from the legalization of abortion will ultimately go far beyond financial considerations.  Let's not forget that a generation that killed its own children whenever it found them inconvenient, unhealthy or expensive is now entering a stage of life when it will soon become inconvenient, unhealthy and expensive.  The survivors of a generation whose fate was in our hands, will soon have our fate in theirs.  Given that sobering reality, maybe our only hope is that God was just kidding when He said that man reaps what he sows.  But the early indicators are that He wasn’t.

The Ghost of Reno Rides Again

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. 

To No One’s Surprise

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Inning is Not a Game

The question is: can a baseball team outscore its opponent in a particular inning but then lose the game?  The answer is obvious.  Not only is this possible but, during baseball season, it literally happens every day.

 

Whenever a team gives up a big inning, there is a good way to tell what their chances are for coming back.  After they finally get the other team out, watch how the players walk off the field.  Some will shuffle back to the dugout with their heads hanging down and a look on their faces like someone just shot their dog.  You can stick those guys with a fork; they’re done.  But others will run to the dugout with the look of a tiger that’s ready to eat.  They are still in the hunt.                

 

There is no denying that, on November 4th, we gave up the big inning.  America’s death merchants and godless Marxists scored some runs by electing Barak Obama.  But on the other hand, that’s all that happened.  They didn’t win the game.          

 

Fortunately, the pro-life movement seems to be handling this situation far better than it did in 1992.  I have been legitimately impressed with how our people have responded to Obama’s election compared to the way they responded to the election of Bill Clinton. I can tell you that in the weeks following the 1992 debacle, our phones lit up with despondent pro-lifers who were absolutely convinced that all was lost.  Of course, after a while, they slowly started coming in off the ledges and, once a little more time had passed, they got back to work. 

 

The interesting thing is, this time around our people are not being driven by despair as much as anger.  Since the election, I have not received one call from someone whimpering about the outcome.  Every single person I’ve talked to has either wanted to know what they could do to help or asked how they could better support the efforts of Life Dynamics.  Not only that, but every other national pro-life leader I’ve talked to has said exactly the same thing.  The pro-lifers are ready to fight.     

 

Several things are at play here.  First, in the 1990s we proved that we could take the best that the abortion lobby could dish out.  Now, having survived Slick Willie and “Waco” Janet we do not feel as threatened by Obama.     

 

Second, I sense that the pro-life movement is more mature, and perhaps even more resolved, than it was in 1992.  It appears that we have fewer people who want to whine and more who want to win. 

 

Third, more pro-lifers are now aware of the fact that in order to win this battle in the political arena we must first win it in the streets.  The good news is that we are winning it in the streets and we’ve been doing so for a long time.  And any way you look at it, Barak Obama can’t do anything more to stop that than Bill Clinton could.  Abortion mills continue to close, the public is becoming increasingly pro-life and the largest increase in pro-life sentiment is in America’s young people.  Today, even some pro-aborts are openly lamenting that their movement is aging rapidly while ours is getting younger.        

 

Now, back to the business at hand.  I have recently been telling you to be looking for news about an exciting new project we’ve been working on for almost three years.  I still can’t give you details other than to say that it is scheduled to be launched in February and, when it hits, it is going to revolutionize our ability to reach the minority community.  So stay tuned; the pro-life movement is about to change forever.

Obamanistas Storm the Winter Palace

Last night, the American people made history.  Next January, Barack Obama will be sworn-in as the first African-American President of the United States.  And from a purely racial perspective, that’s a good thing.  Although this election will not heal all of our nation’s racial wounds, it at least signals that the wounds don’t have to be permanent. 

Unfortunately, the voters also made another kind of history.  

During the cold war, the communists always claimed that we were foolish to worry about them trying to conquer us militarily.  They said there was no need for that because they had the intent and the patience to take us over through an internal revolution.  The conquest of America was not to be accomplished with bullets but with ballots.

We should have listened.  But we didn’t, and soon the most powerful political office in the world will be handed over to an avowed socialist.  This morning, in some fetid corner of hell, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Joe Stalin are toasting each other.

Although the polls should have prepared us for this, it is still hard to imagine how a nation founded by statesmen like Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton could decay into one run by socialist whores like Obama, Pelosi and Reid.  But that’s what we’ve come to.

For my brothers and sisters in the pro-life movement, I would like to offer a little perspective on this situation.  Before you decide to take a bath with your toaster, remember that God is still in control.  He is not holed-up in some obscure section of heaven pacing back and forth and wringing His hands desperately trying to figure out what His next move should be.  We’re the only ones doing that. 

Be assured that I am not trying to downplay the significance of what just happened.  Besides being a Marxist, Barack Obama is the most rabidly pro-abortion, morally defective and completely unqualified person to ever be given the keys to the Oval Office.  This man is thoroughly evil and I have little doubt that we are likely entering into the most dangerous period in the history of our country.  On the 20th of January, 2009, the fox will not be guarding the henhouse – he will be inside the henhouse.   

Having said that, we need to recall that we’ve been through something similar to this before.  When Slick Willie Clinton and his charming little bride took over, the wailing and gnashing of teeth that ensued from the pro-life community would have frightened the sandals off of anyone in the Old Testament.  But eventually, we got up off the canvas and went back to work.  The result was that, in the following eight years, more abortion clinics closed than at any other time in the history of our movement and the abortion rate plummeted. 

The fact is, the Clintons could not beat us even when they turned the United States Department of Justice into a private police force for the abortion industry – and Barack Obama is not going to beat us now.  We should also acknowledge the possibility that, had McCain won, large segments of the pro-life movement would have gone into hibernation.  After all, we’ve done it before.  But since McCain didn’t win, none of us are sitting back and relying on him to do our work.

So let me tell you what’s going to happen now.

Even on this dark and sickening morning, you and I are going to walk onto the battlefield and fight.  Our mission will not be to merely defeat our enemies, but to drive them into the cold hard ground.  We will settle for nothing less than total victory because that’s the only way the killing will stop.  And if we don’t win today, we are going to return to the battlefield tomorrow with that same attitude and that same resolve.  And we will continue to return every day until God either calls us home or the killing ends. 

Look, we all know that the pro-life movement has its warts.  It is not uncommon for us to do really stupid things and we are always fighting with each other.  But for all we do wrong, there are two things you never have to doubt.  First, we are on the right side of the battle and, second, we will never surrender.  We survived the Billary Clinton juggernaut because we prayed like everything depended on God and fought like everything depended on us.  We will now survive Comrade BO for the same reason.

Are there danger signs?  You bet.  Do we need to be concerned about the Supreme Court, the Freedom of Choice Act and socialized medicine paying for abortions?  Absolutely.  Did our task just get harder?  No doubt about it.  But the only thing that really matters, and the one thing we must never forget, is that when God told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against us, He didn’t say anything about it being easy.  He was simply promising us the victory if we were willing to fight for it. 

So now we go forward in that spirit, always mindful that this was never a war between the pro-choice forces and us.  From the first killing, it has been a war between the pro-choice forces and the unborn.  You and I are just soldiers who volunteered to fight on the side of the babies.  We didn’t start this war, it doesn’t belong to us, and we won’t end it.  If you understand that, and if you understand that God is the only General of the Army in which we serve, then you have no reason to be discouraged.

Today, over 3,000 helpless American babies are lined-up for execution and more than 3,000 are scheduled to be killed every day in the future.  When we signed-up for this fight, what we were saying is that those babies could count on us.  Well, last night that commitment was challenged.  To meet it, we will have to quit whining about the election, do our duty and put our trust in God.  You and I are not children and we are not fragile.  We don’t need self-pity and we don’t need hand-holding.  What we need right now, is to stand up and tell Barack Obama – in a clear and defiant voice – the same thing Winston Churchill once told another morally-bankrupt despot: You do your worst and we’ll do our best.

Why the Big Rush?

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.

The Cost of Free Milk

We’ve all heard it said that a farmer doesn’t buy the cow if he’s getting the milk for free.  Generally, parents have used this pearl of folksy wisdom in an effort to dissuade their daughters from having sex before marriage.  But this philosophy has relevance in other areas of life as well.  For example: the upcoming presidential election.  

 

This November, the pro-life movement will once again be in the position of not having a candidate.  Every four years, we put ourselves in this situation because we have made it clear to the Republican Party that, when push comes to shove, we are always willing to settle for the “lesser-of-evils” candidate.  In other words, we’ve let them know that they don’t have to marry us in order to get our milk.  We might preach sexual abstinence to our children, but everyone knows that we don’t have the discipline to practice political abstinence ourselves.  

 

Of course, this leaves the GOP with a wide-open playing field.  After all, they know that the Democrats can be relied upon to nominate some complete moral degenerate, thus guaranteeing that the Republican candidate is going to be seen as the lesser-of-evils.

 

And so it goes in 2008.  On one side is an amoral Marxist and religious heretic who openly describes children conceived in unplanned pregnancies as a “punishment.”  In other words, a garden-variety Democratic presidential candidate.  On the other side is a man who claims to be pro-life, while making it clear that it is not a core-value for him and publicly stating that the lives of the unborn are not deserving of constitutional protection.  In other words, a garden-variety Republican presidential candidate.   

 

Perhaps the time has come to say that what the American people really need is four years of Barak Obama as President, with Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the House and Harry Reid as the leader of the Senate.  Maybe that would wake them up to the fact that the real threat to our future is not the potential for financial bankruptcy but our rapidly accelerating march toward moral bankruptcy. 

 

However, there are also those who think that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid axis-of-evil would irrevocably devastate the country – and it certainly could.  For those people, supporting McCain is simply a matter of “defensive voting.”

 

So what’s it going to be?  Do we sit back and teach the country a lesson or do we deliver another pail of milk?  And I’ll be the first to admit that it’s a tough call.  The only thing I know for sure is that when a nation is legally executing over 3000 helpless children a day, God is not going to judge it over tax policies and unemployment rates.  In the final analysis, we may be able to find many perfectly legitimate reasons to delay that message for another four years.  But only a fool believes that it is one that will wait forever.

Choice is a Moving Target

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. 

The Scandal of Selective Outrage

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.

More Entries


Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics