Mark's Blog

The Power of Self-Delusion

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:33:00-0500

Over the years, George Orwell's observation that some things are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them has proven to be frighteningly accurate. One example was recently seen in a Durango, Colorado, newspaper article in which local abortionist, Richard Grossman, was asked when he thought life begins. His answer was that he believes in the strength, intellect and fortitude of women and that they are the ones who make that decision. He went on to say that it is women who empower the fetus. It is no secret that the pro-life community is constantly accused of being a bunch of knuckle-dragging troglodytes who've been mesmerized by religious superstition while the abortion lobby is portrayed as deep-thinkers guided only by logic and science. Yet here, a practicing baby-killer is asked a question related to science and biology and he responds with some moronic new-age mumbo-jumbo. And, of course, he got away with it because the "journalist" who wrote this puff piece was a card-carrying member of the mainstream media who knew better than to question the "party line" on abortion. In any event, to appreciate the shear idiocy of this idea that women must be allowed to decide when life begins, imagine two children who are conceived at the same moment. Three months later, one mother talks about her baby, knows its gender, has named it, and has even seen it on an ultrasound screen. Meanwhile, the other mother contends that the life of her child hasn't begun yet and decides to have it killed by the goons at Planned Parenthood. The pro-choice argument is that both of these mothers are correct, despite the fact it is physically, biologically and scientifically impossible for that to be the case. Also, if women are going to be the ones who decide when life begins, why should they lose that right by giving birth? Let's say there's a woman who sincerely believes that life doesn't begin until speech is possible and she kills her three-month-old daughter. Should she be charged with murder? What makes her belief that life begins at speech less valid than another woman's belief that life begins in the second trimester, or at viability, or at birth, or at any other arbitrarily chosen point? And what gives society the right to charge this woman with murder? After all, if she claims that the life of her child had not begun, and if she's the one who gets to make that decision, then by definition she did not commit a murder. Or is it that only pregnant women have this mystical ability to know when life begins and, somehow, they lose it at the moment they are no longer pregnant? Like I've said a million times before, the entire pro-choice position is a testament to the fact that the human brain is the only organism in nature that has the ability to intentionally deceive itself. And if you need further proof of it, in this same article, Grossman said that the reason he does abortions is because he is a Christian.

What's Obvious is Not Always Right

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:49:00-0500

I was recently enjoying that most cherished of modern-male traditions channel surfing when I stumbled across some obscure late-night talk-show. The subject was medical research using fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells and it wasn't long before the host and her guest began ragging on the pro-life community for its opposition to these things. Both were practically foaming at the mouth as they accused us of being hypocritical for calling ourselves "pro-life" while opposing technology that could save so many lives. It was soon obvious that the goal of this show was to use fetal tissue research and embryonic stem cell research to create the illusion that something noble comes from abortion. In a transparent attempt to neutralize the biological reality that abortion intentionally takes the life of a living human being, the guest went so far as to propose that, even if life does begin at conception, we should all be willing to accept that the unborn are sacrificing their lives for the benefit of all mankind. Then, right on cue, the host nodded pensively, switched on her most fawn-like demeanor, looked into the camera and reminded the audience of the Biblical reference about no man having greater love than the one who will lay down his life for others. Now, I have been in this battle far too long to be shocked by anything that might be said by these kinds of people. Besides, I had already heard this particular drivel from another member of the pro-choice mob a few years earlier. This guy had spewed forth many of the same laughable positions taken by these two women, even going so far as to question why the pro-life movement was opposed to allowing babies to "assist" in making life better for people with serious health conditions. You heard right. In abortions, the babies are not victims, they are "assistants." This idiotic statement, along with those made on this talk-show, were further evidence that, if the ability to pervert rhetoric is art, the abortion lobby makes Rembrandt, DaVinci and Michelangelo look like a bunch of paint-by-number amateurs. Let's set the record straight. Children who are being killed by abortion are not "laying down" their lives. Their lives are being taken from them through the application of lethal force. Using the corpses of aborted babies for medical research has nothing to do with allowing the unborn to sacrifice their lives to save others. It is about the born hoping that they can improve their own lives by butchering and then mining the unborn. To fully appreciate the moral bankruptcy of this, imagine that a team of researchers has developed a drug that will cure cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. This miracle drug is produced from a chemical found in the human body and can only be taken from living people under 55-years-old. Additionally, clinical trials have proven that the drug is 100 percent effective and perfectly safe. It has also been determined that the amount needed to treat the entire country would require only about 500 donations per year. The only downside is that harvesting this chemical always kills the donor. This broaches the question, given that millions of people could be saved, should we create a national lottery to randomly select 500 people a year who would be forcibly killed to make the drug? After all, out of a population of over 300 million, each individual's chances of being selected would be infinitesimally small and the overall benefit would be astronomical. The only thing we have to do in order to claim this benefit is be willing to say that where the chemical comes from is irrelevant. Remember, whether they want to admit it or not, that is precisely what some people are currently saying about medical research conducted with fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells. The distinction is that one situation is hypothetical and involves 500 people a year while the other is brutally real and involves over 3,000 a day. Of course, the fact is that the pro-life movement has never been opposed to medical research. But we also understand that no force on earth is more potentially evil or dangerous than science unrestrained by morality. In this case, whether fetal tissue research or embryonic stem cell research is morally justified, or not, is wholly dependent on how the tissue and cells are obtained. If they come from umbilical cords, or placenta, or from babies who died in some natural manner (miscarriage, stillbirth, accident, etc.) few people would raise a moral objection. But we cross the line when we start using parts taken from babies that we allowed to be intentionally killed by abortion. And we obliterate that line altogether when as some are now advocating we start creating human embryos for the expressed purpose of using them in medical experiments. By any measure of human decency, it is indefensible that we slaughter these children in the first place. But when we then rob their graves in some Draconian attempt to make our lives better, we disgrace ourselves even further. Meanwhile, the abortion lobby is joined by some in the research field who defend this practice on the basis that these babies are already dead and are going to be tossed away whether we take advantage of them or not. As a nation, what we need to remember is that this is the same rationalization used by the Nazi thugs who harvested gold fillings from the teeth of Jews they killed in their concentration camps. If we want to be a better people than that, we have to stop this holocaust altogether. But until that day comes, when the question is asked whether we should discard these dead babies instead of using them in medical experiments designed to benefit us, the answer must be an unqualified yes. No civilization has the right to profit from the evil that it knowingly and intentionally commits.

Our Night in Jail

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:05:00-0500

Let's see if I've got this straight. First, the country elects a godless-Marxist as president. Second, in order to ram through one of his pet socialist projects, this moral degenerate stands in front of the American people and solemnly promises that his government run health care system will not pay for abortions. Third, less than four months later, government funding of abortions is discovered to be already in place in at least two states. To put it succinctly, Comrade Obama was lying through his blood-stained teeth. Of course, this is precisely what those of us in the pro-life movement were saying all along, only to be ridiculed and dismissed by the abortion lobby stooges who dominate the media. The next thing we should anticipate is that, if the Democrats are asked whether this guy broke his promise not to fund abortion, the most predictable response will be that, "It depends on what the definition of 'not' is." And don't laugh. Remember, this same little stunt worked pretty well for the previous Democrat president. Now if you're looking for a silver lining in all of this, consider the following. Right now, our country is like the young thug who gets thrown in jail for the first time. He is there for some petty crime and knows that he will not be locked-up for long. But, whether he realizes it or not, the bigger issue is that he is being shown what his future will be like unless he makes changes. And he may not understand it at the moment, but if this experience causes him to make those changes, losing his freedom for a few days will be the thing that saves his life. In fact, it may be the only thing that could have saved him. That is where America is today. The Obama administration is shoving down our throats a bitter foretaste of what life is like under the rule of jack-booted Marxists. In effect, they have placed us at a crossroads. If come November and again in 2012, this small glimpse of the future causes the voters to turn off the path we have been following since early in the last century, the election of Obama will immediately become the best thing that ever happened to us. If they do not, however, the country we have known for the last 234 years will soon be unrecognizableif it exists at all. It is as simple as that. In the mean time, let's give the devil his due. Who else but Comrade Obama could make Slick Willy Clinton seem like a man of high moral principles and cause Jimmy Carter to come across as a steely-eyed paragon of competence. I mean, you have to admit, that's a heck of a trick.

Rhetorical Sandpaper

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:24:00-0500

We all know that language plays a crucial role in the battle over abortion. And it is no secret that the American abortion lobby is extraordinarily talented in the manipulation and distortion of rhetoric. It is also true that their loyal little lapdogs in the media have memorized and employed all the verbal gymnastics their masters taught them. Of course, those of us in the pro-life movement cannot control the language these people use to market this holocaust. But the bigger problem is that their deceptions are often so subtle that we don't pick up on them and, therefore, don't expose them. To make matters even worse, sometimes we actually use them in our own conversations. I recently saw a textbook example of this on a Christian talk show. The host is a pastor I know to be unapologetically pro-life and he was introducing a new guest to his studio audience. He gave her name and then described her as having become pregnant at the age of fourteen which then forced her to decide whether to "have the baby" or not. My jaw dropped at least a foot. Here was a pro-life minister on a national television show speaking about abortion as if someone from Planned Parenthood or the National Abortion Federation was whispering in his ear. This man, though well-intentioned, was oblivious to the fact that this "have-the-baby / not-have-the-baby" jibberish is nothing more than a diversionary scam being run by the abortion lobby. Let's set the record straight here and now. By the time a woman is pregnant, it is too late for her to decide whether she wants to have the baby or not. She is going to have the baby! The only unresolved issue is whether she will have a live baby or a dead one. That is precisely what this "have-the-baby / not-have-the-baby" nonsense was designed to keep the public from thinking about. It was also designed to dull the consciences of the moms who might be contemplating an abortion. After all, abortion is much more palatable if these women can be deceived into believing that they are not really killing their babies; they're just choosing not to have them. Unfortunately, the trap this minister fell into is just one of many from the vast catalogue of mindless word games the abortion lobby has assembled. They accuse us of trying to deny women their right to have "pregnancy terminations" when, in fact, it is physically impossible to prevent pregnancy terminations. All pregnancies terminate; our mission is to keep them from terminating with a corpse. They label abortion as "reproductive health care" despite the biological reality that by the time abortion is a consideration, reproduction has already taken place. In addition, "health care" relates to the prevention or treatment of disease, abzzzity, injury or illness. Since pregnancy does not fit into any of these categories, by definition, abortion cannot be "health care." Let's also not forget that anytime the subject turns to abortions for teenagers, these people are quick to describe abortion as an unfortunate necessity in a nation full of "babies having babies." Amazingly, however, at the moment someone mentions laws requiring parental involvement for minor girls to have abortions, the rhetoric changes. Those same teenagers are never referred to as "babies having abortions." Instead, by some mystical and unexplained force of nature, when these "babies" decide they want to buy an abortion, they instantly become "young women exercising their Constitutional rights." The list of such rhetorical flim-flams goes on and on and, ironically, I think the public actually sees through most of them. The problem is, the public has also trained itself to look the other way. It may be that they are motivated to do this by the fact that they are living with a wrenching internal conflict. On one hand, the American people see abortion for the crime against humanity that it is and they are growing increasingly queasy about its legality. On the other hand, they have still not mustered the courage to stand up and say it will not be tolerated. To reconcile this conflict, they have chosen to accept a certain level of rhetorical self-deception in the hope that these delusions will sand off a few of abortion's rougher edges. In effect, the public needs to be lied to and the abortion lobby is willing to lie to them. In the mean time, our job is to hold everyone's feet to the fires of truth.

The Inevitable Harvest

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:02:00-0500

The abortion lobby continues to regurgitate the long-debunked myth of overpopulation as a justification for the holocaust they are carrying out. It's also safe to assume that, as the economy plummets further into the abyss of Obamanomics, these degenerates will be pushing their particular brand of child sacrifice as the only thing standing between humanity and the apocalypse. Listen closely and you can almost hear them breathlessly warning us, "Quick! Before it's too late! We've got to kill these unborn babies before they start gobbling up all our food and breathing all our air!" I have often referred to the Biblical admonition about reaping what you sow and how it applies to the abortion issue. I won't go into the details but, in a nutshell, consider that the same generation that has spent the last 40 years killing its own children whenever it found them inconvenient, unhealthy or expensive is now entering a stage of life where it will soon be inconvenient, unhealthy and expensive. In order to appreciate the impact of this, a few things need to be considered. First, from now until 2026, baby-boomers reach retirement age at the rate of 10,000 a day. However, the money to fulfill the government's financial obligations to them does not exist. Oh sure, the boomers paid into the Social Security system, but Congress was running a Ponzi scheme with it. They took the money, left an IOU in its place and then squandered it to buy votes. Making matters worse, since 1973, over 25 percent of the taxpayers needed to replace this money were executed through abortion. This guaranteed that a significantly larger tax burden would be visited upon a significantly smaller base of taxpayers. The result is that the day is rapidly approaching when Americans 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. A similar financial tsunami is also starting to hit the shores of our healthcare system. Think about this: in 1900, the average person in the United States lived less than 48 years and only one person in 25 lived to be 60. Today, the average life expectancy is almost 80. In addition, the number of Americans living past 100 doubled in the 1980s and doubled again in the 1990s. The downside is that, when it comes to the cost of healthcare, these added years are by far the most expensive years of a person's life. These, and other, demographic realities are poised to bankrupt the Medicare and Medicaid systems. And again, one of the primary factors behind these demographics is abortion. The question this raises is very simple. When a society morally bankrupts itself by legalizing the sacrifice of a specific group of human beings in order to address social problems, is it then conditioned to solve the social problems created by an aging population in the same way? I suggest that the answer lies in whether we think God was lying about this reaping and sowing business. (In case you're wondering, He wasn't.) I also suggest that the day of reckoning is not far off but is, instead, already at our throats. It's called socialized medicine. That view was reinforced a few days ago when Obama appointed David Berwick to oversee America's healthcare entitlement programs. Berwick is an open and rabid supporter of a single-payer system in which healthcare is rationed by the government. During a speech he gave in England to celebrate that country's 60th anniversary with socialized medicine, he said, "Cynics beware, I am romantic about the National Health Service. I love it." A year later, in an interview with Biotechnology Healthcare Journal, he stated that, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration healthcare the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open." Now he will be in a position to make it happen. Let's cut to the chase. There are those who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still cling to the idea that overpopulation is destroying the world. Today, they serve as a living testimony to the difficulty of changing beliefs with mere facts. And when the time comes that our Healthcare Czars have figured out that population growth and exploding healthcare costs are not driven by too many babies being born but by older people taking too long to die, the unborn will no longer be alone on the radar screen. At that moment, we will begin living in a world where a couple could have their unborn child aborted in the morning and their grandmother euthanized in the afternoon. It will be a world in which the "reap what you sow" prophecy is being carried out. At this point, the only thing to be decided is whether it is too late to turn back. I do not pretend to know the answer to that question. Perhaps we will all be in a better position to make that determination come November 2nd. But what I can tell you, right now, is that if we do not turn back we will soon have no choice but to accept our fate in The Brave New World.

In Fear of Shadows

Thu, 13 May 2010 14:26:00-0500

Every day, Americans read the newspapers and look at the things that are going on around them and, somewhere inside, they know that something is terribly wrong. I call it the "Billy the Kid" syndrome. The legend once held that Billy became infamous and feared in the old west because he killed his first man before he had reached the age of sixteen. Today, a sixteen-year-old killing someone is not even newsworthy. I am no psychiatrist, but to me this is clearly related to the concept of cognitive dissonance. It is a phenomenon that occurs when a person concurrently believes two things are true when, in reality, they are in direct conflict with each other. This is the place Americans now find themselves in and it is abortion that put us here. We continue to tell ourselves that we are a civilized nation while, simultaneously, sanctioning the wholesale slaughter of what we know to be innocent human beings. Each of us knows that the act of abortion is murder, but that knowledge cannot be reconciled with the reality that we made abortion legal. So we no longer call it murder; now it's just called a "choice." That is the way cognitive dissonance is resolved. It has always seemed to me that this psychological disorder could only be found in human beings. I say this out of my observation that the human brain is the only form of matter on earth with the ability to intentionally deceive itself. It is from that ability that we can rationalize the worst behavior imaginable if it is something we want to do badly enough. What we conveniently ignore, however, is that this voluntary self-delusion always comes with a price. What we are seeing today is that, while we may still believe in the "vision" of America, the distinction between vision and hallucination is fading. By violating our own moral code, we have created a world for ourselves in which unforeseen and unintended consequences pace in the shadows like starving tigers. And even though the American people may not yet realize it, as long as they remain in this place, every path they take will lead them past another shadow.

Smooching the Frog

Wed, 21 Apr 2010 16:23:00-0500

Over the last few years, polls have consistently shown that the American people are becoming more and more pro-life. Many in the abortion lobby say the reason for this has been their failure to remove the stigma from abortion and mainstream it into society. This is a problem they have known about for a long time and have tried to address in several ways. For example, a couple of years ago they introduced a campaign in which they offered t-shirts for sale with the saying "I Had an Abortion" emblazoned across the front. This effort was a colossal flop and, today, it serves as a monument to the sheer lunacy of these people. I mean, these fools actually thought they could get American women to publicly brag about having killed their children. Of course, some of their attempts to solve the stigma problem have been more subtle than this t-shirt fiasco. In one example, several years ago they began to characterize the epidemic of teen pregnancy as one of "babies having babies." At the same time, however, they were describing teens who have abortions as "young women exercising their Constitutional rights." The underlying message was that a pregnant 14-year-old who gives birth is still just a baby herself but, if she has an abortion, she suddenly becomes a "young woman." In effect, they were selling abortion as some sort of bizarre right of passage into adulthood. It was a slick marketing strategy based on the realization that there is not one teenage girl in the country who would rather be seen as a baby than as a young woman. And while the abortion lobby may have given up on the "I Had an Abortion" t-shirt idea, this "abortion-as-a-right-of-passage" strategy is still in place. A few months ago, Planned Parenthood spokesperson, Janet Colm, was speaking to a meeting of their supporters in North Carolina where she referred to abortion as a "maturing experience." She said that for many young women, having an abortion represents the first time in their lives where they "successfully" dealt with a major personal crisis. She went on to say that Planned Parenthood tells their customers that abortion is a "common life event" similar to having a baby, getting married, getting divorced or having a loved one pass away. Now I want to say something to the Janet Colms of this world. You are lying. Abortion is not equivalent to the life experiences you described. It is equivalent to murder, barbarism and genocide. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, that is the only reason you've never been able to mainstream it. The fact is, you people have been kissing this frog for 40 years and it still hasn't turned into a prince. But if that's what you want to do, then keep puckering up. As you do so, however, make no mistake about it; the pro-life movement will continue to expose you for exactly what you are: morally bankrupt contract killers.

Eye on the Prize

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:53:00-0500

Across the country, there is a growing effort to place ballot initiatives before the voters that, if successful, would legally establish the personhood of the unborn child. Such citizen-led campaigns are already being carried out in several states and more are in the planning stages. We have also seen this Personhood Movement challenged by some pro-lifers who insist that we should, instead, concentrate our efforts on overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, a few days ago I was called by a state pro-life leader who was adamantly pushing this approach. His contention was that such a strategy has a much higher probability of success and would accomplish the same result. The reason for his call was to ask me to join his group in discouraging the Personhood initiative in his state. I declined. The unfortunate thing is, his "accomplish the same result" claim is not only wrong, it is widely held within the pro-life movement. A significant number of our people appear to believe that overturning Roe would automatically make abortion illegal and that is simply not the case. In reality, the far more important issue is the legal reasoning that the Supreme Court uses to overturn Roe. Both the 5th and 14th Amendments create a Constitutional right-to-life for all "persons" as well as a federal duty to protect those lives. Therefore, if the Court were to overturn Roe on the basis that the unborn child is a person, their lives would be protected by the Constitution and this nightmare would be over. However, most legal experts feel that the Court is far more likely to overturn Roe on the basis that the Constitution is silent on abortion and that it is, therefore, a "state's rights" matter. That would be an unmitigated disaster for the unborn. We would almost immediately end up with a "patchwork quilt" of abortion laws in which a few states would prohibit abortion altogether, others would allow it in any circumstance, and the vast majority would take some sort of middle path. Given that state lines are freely crossed, this would leave every unborn baby in every state exposed to abortion. It could also guarantee that our great-grandchildren will still be fighting this battle a hundred years from now. Before continuing, let me make it clear that I will always be an unwavering believer in state's rights and am fully aware that the U.S. Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government. However, when someone claims to be pro-life, he or she is saying that the unborn are persons. After all, there is no other basis upon which to justify the pro-life position. So in light of the 5th and 14th Amendments, it would be preposterous for the pro-life movement to be working toward a situation where the right-to-life of the unborn is negotiated within the state legislatures. In the final analysis, what every pro-lifer needs to appreciate is the fact that there are a lot of good people in our movement doing a lot of good work on behalf of the unborn. But we must never lose sight of the fact that our ultimate mission is not to regulate abortion, restrict abortion, reduce the numbers of abortions or hammer out some sort of accommodation with the death lobby. Nor should we ever allow that to become our mission. Instead, we must always be mindful that until America has a constitutional amendment that affirms the personhood of the unborn from the moment of fertilization, this battle cannot end; it can only ebb and flow. And regardless of its success or lack of success, the Personhood Movement is reminding us of that.

Stuck on Stupid

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:03:00-0500

Back when the Soviet Union still existed, jokes were often circulated that ridiculed their government-controlled media. One of them went something like this: Athletes from the United States and the U.S.S.R. were pitted against each other in a track meet that was eventually won by the Yanks. The next day, headlines across Russia screamed, "Soviets Take Second in International Competition; Americans Finish Next to Last!" In those days, jokes like this worked because America still claimed the moral superiority of having a "free press." And whether that claim reflected reality or not, we believed it was true and that is all that mattered. Of course, the bloom is now off the rose. Only a complete idiot could witness what's going on in modern American journalism and not see that it has become a joke in and of itself. The fact is that the same godless / Marxist ideology that once controlled the Soviet media now controls the American media. It could also be that the American system is the worst of the two. After all, the Soviet press may have pushed the socialist manifesto because they were ordered to do so by humorless people wearing hobnailed boots. But the American press has no such defense; they knowingly manipulate the reporting of world events in order to advance this political agenda because they are its true believers. However, while there is ample evidence to support this cynical analysis, my experience has been that it does not really explain most of the rabid pro-abortion bias we have seen from the media over the last 40 years. Instead, what I have noticed is that, as it regards this specific issue, contemporary journalists are not driven by ideology as much as they are by their own stupidity and laziness. This may sound overly simplistic but, after many years of interacting with these people, I have come to the inescapable conclusion that, with almost no exceptions, they are simply not very bright. It is also clear that they have now devolved into a collection of people who dismiss traditional concepts of morality as arcane, quaint and irrelevant. Moreover, that doesn't change much whether they work for the Frognot Texas Weekly Gazette or the New York Times or ABC News. It was in the mid 1980s that I first began to understand how profoundly these things impact the media's abortion coverage. At the time, I was traveling almost every weekend conducting 8-hour training seminars designed to teach people how to articulate the pro-life position. I eventually did about 150 of these seminars across the U.S. and Canada and had more than 15,000 people attend. One day, it dawned on me that if I were doing a parallel seminar for the pro-choice side my task would be much easier. In my Life Activist Seminar, I had to address complex issues related to the law, philosophy, biology, medicine, theology, logic, marketing,etcetera. These are the areas that, I knew, attendees had to understand in order to be effective defenders of the unborn. But if I were training the other side, my seminar would need to last no more than five minutes and I would not have to touch on any complicated issues. All I would have to do is make sure that every attendee left the room knowing how to mindlessly recite the following mantra: "I am not in favor of abortion, I would never be involved in an abortion and I would do anything I could to discourage anyone I know from having one. But ultimately, I don't think the government has a right to make this decision." That's it! If you can just memorize that, you don't need to know anything else. In effect, that simple rhetoric keeps you from ever having to defend a practice that you intuitively know is indefensible. At the same time, however, those who defend the rights of the unborn will never escape the requirement that they have at least a basic understanding of the things I mentioned above: law, philosophy, biology, medicine, theology, logic, marketing, etcetera. In short, it is an unavoidable aspect of this battle that the pro-choice position will always be exponentially easier to defend than the pro-life position. Of course, once you combine that with the fundamental nature of the modern press, it becomes obvious why the pro-choice position has become the default position of the contemporary media. It requires no effort, no thought and no morality, all of which make it custom made for these people. Today, the media advances this agenda through the use of two mechanisms. To illustrate the first, I ask you to imagine that you work for a corporation that has just fired a long-time employee. The next morning the company sends the following memo to the remaining staff: "Yesterday, we were forced to terminate the employment of Chief Financial Officer, John Smith. It has always been company policy that employees who are found to be embezzling money from our accounts are immediately dismissed." So why was John Smith fired? The obvious assumption would be that he was stealing money. But notice that, technically, the memo didn't say that; it simply made two true statements that encouraged such an assumption. It's a real-world variation of the, "Soviets Take Second, Americans Finish Next to Last!" joke. This is a slimy little trick the media has learned to use when dealing with the abortion issue. There are thousands of examples of this but I'll cite just one of the more outrageous. Years ago, Operation Rescue went to Buffalo, New York, to peacefully blockade an abortion clinic. On CNN News that night, the voice-over for the lead story was something along the lines of, "Violence Erupts as Operation Rescue Invades Buffalo." Meanwhile, on the screen they show a group of enraged protestors literally punching police officers and having to be wrestled to the ground. The message was unambiguous and perfectly delivered: pro-lifers are violent. The only problem was that the protestors who were shown fighting with the police were not part of Operation Rescue but were, instead, a group of pro-choice thugs. These people had physically accosted the pro-lifers and when the authorities intervened they were attacked as well. And make no mistake about it, CNN knew exactly what was going on because they were right there on the spot. But they are also aware that in a nation where video cameras are everywhere, they can't take the risk of telling an outright lie. So like the corporation I cited in the earlier fictional story, CNN carefully assembled two true statements in a way that would encourage the audience to believe a lie. This sort of strategy is now almost universally employed by the media when reporting on abortion and illustrates the abysmal dishonesty that has become endemic within contemporary journalism. A second phenomenon exemplifies the laziness of these people. When covering a story in which those on opposite sides of an issue make contradictory statements, legitimate journalism dictates that the journalist investigate and expose who is lying and who is telling the truth. Today, however, that is not what happens. Modern journalist have adopted the "equal time" doctrine. They are too inept and too lazy to investigate, so they just regurgitate whatever the two sides say and declare that they have been fair to both. The problem is, if statement "A" and statement "Z" cannot both be true, publishing both without exposing who's lying does nothing more than give as much weight to the lie as it does to the truth. Those of us in the pro-life movement see this almost every day but I will just cite one common example. In a story about late-term abortions, it is almost inevitable that the pro-life spokesperson will say that, in 1973, the Supreme Court made abortion legal through all nine months of pregnancy. This, of course, is something the other side has been hiding from the American people since day one and they realize that it would be a public relations nightmare for them to find out about it now. So they say something along the lines of: "Roe was a compromise decision that allows unrestricted abortion in the first trimester, allows it for the health and safety of the mother in the second trimester and does not permit it at all in the third trimester except to save the mother's life." Now obviously, somebody's lying. But the media does not investigate because they are either too lazy to do so or because they are afraid to find out who's lying. On many occasions, I have confronted reporters over this very issue and told them precisely how they could discover for themselves what the truth is. But with not one exception to date, the response has been that their responsibility is to let each side have their say. In their world, this perverted sense of "fairness" trumps the truth every time. In the final analysis, we live at a moment in history that is often called the age of information. Yet it is a constant source of aggravation for the pro-life movement that, even after all these years, so many Americans know so little about abortion. But let's also remember that we live in a society that is obsessed with the meaningless and the trivial. I am reminded of this every time I think about a particular article that was published several years ago. It gave the results of a series of man-on-the-street interviews in which randomly selected people were asked questions pertaining to current events and the United States government. One question asked them if they could name the only woman who was on the United States Supreme Court at that time. The number one answer was ... Judge Judy.

The George Bailey Syndrome

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:14:00-0500

At the beginning of the classic movie, It’s a Wonderful Life, George Bailey stood on a snow covered bridge preparing to jump into the icy river below. He was going to kill himself after concluding that he had made a mess of things and that his life had counted for nothing. Then, at the height of his despair, he was visited by an angel who showed him what the world would have been like had he never lived. In the end, George had come to see that he was allowing his life to be defined by its failures.

There is a valuable lesson in that for the pro-life movement.

We recently observed the 37^th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision and I sometimes get the feeling that our self-doubt and sense of failure has grown with each of those years. While we certainly don’t question the rightness of our cause, the enormity of the challenges it presents makes us doubt that our blood, sweat and tears are even making a difference much less leading us to victory. This attitude seems to be reinforced when you recognize that, for all our efforts, we have not returned legal protection to one baby in one state. On the surface, it would seem that all we’ve really done is minimally regulate the circumstances under which they are killed.

While that analysis may be technically accurate, it paints a picture that does not reveal the whole story. Although few, if any, would call me an angel, I want to show you – my brothers and sisters in this struggle – what our little corner of the world would be like if you had not done what you have done.

When I started Life Dynamics in 1992, there were over 2100 free-standing abortion clinics in America. Today, there are fewer than 750 and those that remain continue to close. But be assured, if the pro-life movement had never existed, there could easily be one in every mall and strip shopping center in the country.

Now if you think the idea of mall-based abortion franchises is too crass even by Planned Parenthood’s standards, you don’t know much about Planned Parenthood. In reality, this is precisely the kind of thing they would do if they could get away with it. You might also be tempted to think that the American people would not tolerate something this outrageous. If so, I remind you that, fifty years ago, those same people would have labeled you insane if you had predicted that they would soon be driving past free-standing abortion businesses with toll-free numbers, Yellow Page ads and credit-card decals on the front door. And they would have hauled you away to some asylum if you had predicted that it would be perfectly legal for these people to offer late-term abortions on viable healthy babies being carried by healthy moms. It’s also likely that they would have shot you on the spot if you had suggested that it would be legal for 12-year-old girls to be taken to these places and aborted without their parent’s knowledge.

The point is, if you consider that these things happened in a country with a vibrant pro-life movement, it’s not farfetched to imagine abortion franchises in the malls of a country with no pro-life movement. In that environment, we could also expect to see the abortion pill, RU-486, hanging in bubble packs at every convenience store. Obviously, they’d be the perfect companion to the large variety of condoms and “personal lubricants” that are hanging there right now.

There’s more.

If the pro-life movement had never existed … it is almost guaranteed that every public school and university in America would either have an on-site abortion clinic or a contract with a nearby abortionist.

If the pro-life movement had never existed … there would be no debate about paying for abortion in national health care. Instead, the government would have been funding them since day one. In addition, the right-to-life of the unborn would not even be discussed in either the public arena or the political process. But due to your efforts, poll after poll is now documenting a dramatic shift toward the pro-life position – especially among the young.

If the pro-life movement had never existed … we would not see the faces of children with diseases like Down syndrome – not because these maladies had been cured but because abortion would have long ago become the accepted medical “treatment” for every imperfect baby. After all, killing people is cheaper than healing them and easier than accommodating them.

If the pro-life movement had never existed … there would be no crisis pregnancy network to help those women who might not want to submit to abortion. That’s because, without your voices, abortion would be the default position for every unplanned pregnancy. Without you, we would have devolved into a nation where the killing of an unborn child has no more moral significance than the pulling of a tooth. That is what Ronald Reagan was saying when he referred to the pro-life movement as “The Conscience of the Nation.”

The list goes on and on and, if you think I am exaggerating about these things, let me introduce something you may not have considered.

In the early 1920s, the Soviet Union became the first country in the world to legalize abortion. Many years later, several studies were conducted to determine how that decision was playing out. To say the least, the findings were stunning.

One published study discovered that the average Soviet woman would have nine abortions during her child-bearing years. Other research documented that 90 percent of all first pregnancies in the Soviet Union and 60 percent of all subsequent pregnancies were legally aborted. It is also known that, of the remaining pregnancies, many of them ended in illegal or unreported abortions. The result was that, according to one American researcher, in some parts of the Soviet Union women underwent as many as 28 abortions.

Today, the Russian government is saying that the health consequences of this have been “catastrophic” for that nation’s women. Additionally, economists are predicting that the demographic realities brought on by Russia’s shrinking population will soon cause an economic meltdown. In fact, some demographers are saying that this collapse has already begun.

The Soviet experience with abortion is a prototype for what happens in a country where the abortion lobby is allowed to operate without opposition and, therefore, without restraint. Make no mistake, had it not been for the American pro-life movement, what happened in Russia would have been duplicated in every state of the union. In that case, we would not now be standing on the graves of 50 million dead babies; we would be standing one the graves of 150 million or 250 million or … God only knows how many. Think about that the next time you start to wonder what your blood, sweat and tears have bought.

As we go forward, it is important to never forget that this is not a war between the pro-aborts and us. It is a war between the pro-aborts and the unborn. You and I are merely soldiers who volunteered to fight on the side of the unborn. This means that, without the pro-life movement, these babies would be left alone to defend themselves against these remorseless cowards and amoral barbarians.

But that has not happened and it never will. Although it is true that we have made mistakes and will make some more, the most important truth is that we will never turn our backs on the unborn. We all know that there have been times in the last 37 years when it would have been easy to walk away. It is no secret that, since the day this battle began, the abortion lobby has had every advantage they needed to wipe us out. They’ve had boxcars full of money, they’ve literally owned the media and they’ve had a stranglehold on the political process, the judicial system, the academic community, Hollywood, the music industry and most of what’s seen on television.

Yet despite all that, we didn’t walk away. Instead, we’re still standing and stronger than ever. That’s because we have always sent a clear and unmistakable message that whatever sacrifice must be made, we will make; whatever burden must be borne, we will bear; and whatever obstacle must be overcome, we will overcome. We do this because it is what God expects of us. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against us – and if abortion is not a gate into hell, then hell does not exist.

So you and I will continue to do our duty and we will continue to trust God to deliver the victory. Until that day comes, whatever our role in this cause, we will not allow Satan to rub our noses in our failures. We will be proud of our past, focused on the battle in front of us and resolute about the future. And we will leave the snow covered bridges to our enemies.

Body Count

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:09:00-0500

Even after all these years, abortion enthusiasts continue to drone that women have the right to control their bodies and that the unborn child is part of the mother’s body. The problem is, for that to be true we have to accept that when a woman is pregnant she has 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 heads, 2 hearts, 2 brains, and so on. And if she is carrying twins, she has 6 arms, 6 legs, 3 heads, 3 hearts, 3 brains and … well you get the picture. We’re also supposed to believe that if her unborn child is male for a few months of her life this woman has a penis.

Obviously, only a card-carrying moron could suggest such things. In reality, the unborn child has its own genetic code, blood type, fingerprints, brain, nervous system and internal organs. As a matter of fact, if it were possible for an unborn child to commit a crime, it has everything necessary to identify it in a court of law. Further, there is no possibility that this biological evidence would identify anyone other than the unborn child from whom it was taken. In short, there is no rational way to get around the fact that the unborn child is a separate individual from the mother.

To illustrate just how idiotic this “part-of-the-woman’s-body” argument is, I ask you to imagine a photograph of conjoined (Siamese) twins and decide whether you consider it to be a picture of one person or two? However, before you answer, remember that conjoined twins are much closer to being one person than is a mother and her unborn child. Conjoined twins are always the same sex, always have the same DNA, are always the same blood type, always share at least one external body structure and often share several internal organs. And as long as they are joined, if one dies they both die.

But none of that is true about a mom and her unborn baby. They are the same sex only about half the time, often don’t have the same blood type, never have the same DNA and they do not share any external body parts or internal organs. Moreover, it is not at all uncommon for one to survive when the other one dies.

The point is, while it would be absurd to claim that conjoined twins are not two distinct individuals, even that argument is more grounded in scientific reality than is the claim that a mother and her unborn child are not two distinct individuals.

Before I leave this issue, I remind you of an event that took place in the summer of 1999. A physician in Nashville, Tennessee, had just completed operating on a 21-week-old unborn child who had been temporarily removed from his mother’s uterus and placed on her abdomen. After returning the little boy to the womb, the surgeon was about to close the incision when the child suddenly punched his arm out and wrapped his hand around the doctor’s finger. Coincidently, photojournalist Michael Clancy was documenting the surgery and his picture of this astonishing event would soon be mesmerizing people around the world.

This new field of medicine also raises an interesting dilemma regarding the rhetoric of the abortion debate. The abortion lobby continues to deride our use of the words, “child” or “baby” to describe the unborn, saying that a fetus is neither. If that is true, then how should we describe the patient being operated on during this kind of surgery? It is obviously not the mother and it can’t be a fetus because it is not in the womb. So what is it? And if we are going to say that it is a baby while lying on its mother’s abdomen, on what biological basis does it lose that designation when placed back in her womb?

To put it another way, if the unborn are not living human beings and if they not separate human beings from their mothers, who was it that grabbed that doctor’s finger back in 1999?

Why the Hurry?

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:35:00-0500

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.

How the Game is Played

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:03:00-0500

The generally accepted understanding is that the word “healthcare” relates to the prevention and/or treatment of illness, injury and disease. Of course, pregnancy is none of those. Beyond that, according to the abortion industry’s own statistics, almost every elective abortion in America is done for a non-medical reason on a healthy baby and a healthy mother whose pregnancy poses no threat to her physical well-being.

What all this means is that, by definition, abortion cannot logically be considered healthcare. But despite this, and despite the abortion lobby’s oft-repeated chant that abortion is none of the government’s business, they want the government to pay for them. Somehow, the “right to choose” mysteriously evaporates when it comes to buying abortions for other people.

This is now one of the issues holding up the passage of a government-run healthcare bill. On one hand, the Obamanistas insist that their plan will not fund abortion. But on the other hand, they continue to oppose any amendment that would expressly prohibit it. Obviously, they understand that if the final legislation does not specifically prohibit abortion funding, it tacitly allows it.

However, I have come to suspect that something else is afoot here. I think the Obamanistas are not the least bit worried about a prohibition against abortion funding being written into this legislation. Instead, what they are doing is holding this issue back as a future bargaining chip.

It is clear that their efforts to nationalize the American healthcare system is in deep trouble. Moreover, with each passing day, they are looking more and more strident as they toy with the idea of unilaterally ramming it through behind closed doors. This is often referred to as the “Nuclear Option.”

The problem is, in order for it to succeed, the Democrats would have to be united and it is increasingly apparent that no such unity exists. Today, Democrats who are opposed to government-funded abortion are in open revolt and they are starting to be joined by those who are nervous about the next election cycle. For this second group, the fear is that the sort of bullying being contemplated by the Obama administration will not sit well with a public who has never really been sold on the idea of turning their medical future over to the same nitwits who run the post office.

Given this environment, it could be that Comrades Obama, Reid and Pelosi are waiting for the right moment to offer a “compromise” in which they agree to a written exemption for abortion funding in exchange for support of the overall plan. This would lure the “anti-funding” Democrats back onto the reservation while reducing the fears of those concerned about re-election. After all, this new willingness to compromise would blunt the “bullying” perception.

What the public doesn’t realize, but the Obamanistas do realize, is that this is not a compromise at all. For the last 50 years, America’s godless Left has counted on the federal courts to do whatever they could not get done in the legislative process. In fact, that is precisely how abortion became legal in the first place. What they are now counting on is that, even if they agree to include a prohibition against funding abortion, the courts will remove it. They will rule it unconstitutional on the basis that abortion is a legal medical procedure and not paying for it would be discrimination against women.

Mark my words. If Obama Care passes with an abortion-funding exclusion, not only will that provision be immediately challenged in the courts, but the legal mechanism to do so is being formulated right now with the help of the Obama administration. The reality is, the only way abortion will not be covered under Obama Care is if Obama Care is never passed.

Now for the good news.

Under current proposals, even if Obama Care is passed, it is not scheduled to be implemented until 2013. That gives the Republicans two enormous opportunities. First, they can make this the centerpiece of their 2012 House, Senate and Presidential races. The theme should be: “Elect us and we will repeal this nightmare before it begins.”

Second, the Republicans should be pointing out that when the Democrats locked them out of the process, they also locked out every voter in the districts with Republican representatives. Think about it. As it now stands, anyone who lives in a congressional district held by a Republican, or in a state with Republican senators, is completely unrepresented in one of the most important political events in the history of our country. Anyway you cut it, a large percentage of the American citizenry currently has no voice in a political debate that will determine both their physical and their financial futures.

If the GOP will hammer those two points home, the fact that a majority of American voters do not want socialized medicine – a fact which the Obamanistas are so comfortable ignoring today – will be quite relevant in 2012.

Maafa 21 Rocks!

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:52:00-0500

By any measure, the response to Maafa 21 has been astonishing.

It is routinely being called “stunning,” “breathtaking,” and “jaw-dropping.” Many viewers have said they were left “speechless” by what they saw and several have told us that it filled them with anger. One African-American pastor and 1960’s civil rights activist said, “I had always been suspicious about some of this stuff, but this film connects the dots in a way I never really understood before.” Another described it as “lightening in a bottle” and said that for the first time in his life has a tool to educate the African-American community about the abortion lobby’s real agenda.

It has never been a secret that one of the pro-life movement’s biggest frustrations has been its inability to effectively recruit the African-American community. Despite the fact that polls consistently show that blacks are more pro-life than whites, that reality has not translated into them joining the battle in significant numbers.

But with the launch of Maafa 21, that is changing and even though we are just getting started the message is spreading like wildfire. The internet and YouTube are buzzing with Maafa 21; one conservative radio talk show purchased 750 copies for his audience and it has been shown twice in the Capitol Visitor Center Theater in Washington. This was done through the help of Congressman Trent Franks and, after the showing, one African-American woman who works as an aid to a pro-choice member of the Congressional Black Caucus said, “I was moved to tears. I came in here with an opposite mindset and I am leaving with another. My life has been changed forever.”

Another example of the power of Maafa 21 was seen when Rev. Clenard Childress assembled a team of black street activists who gave out 400 copies of Maafa 21 to credentialed members of the NAACP at their recent four-day national convention. The response was incredible with many people taking the DVD back to their hotel room to watch at night and then returning the next day to ask what they could do to help. In fact, one of those who did exactly that was an NAACP attorney. Clenard also found strong support among the younger convention goers and one professor at a historically black college said he was going to make Maafa 21 part of his curriculum.

One thing that made Clenard’s NAACP effort so successful was a statement by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Just days before the convention began, she was quoted in the New York Times saying, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Think about that for a moment. Here is the most radically pro-abortion member of the United States Supreme Court admitting that the driving force behind the legalization of abortion was not “women’s rights” or “privacy” or “reproductive freedom” as we’ve been told. She says that the motivation for it was EUGENICS, which is precisely what Maafa 21 documents! We could not have bought a public relations victory like that for a billion dollars and here it was being given to us for free. Clenard told me that whenever his team repeated that quote to the convention participants, even those who were the most skeptical about Maafa 21 were suddenly quite interested. It seems they were aware of who the “population” was that Ginsburg and her cronies did not “want to have too many of.”

We are especially excited about how Maafa 21 is opening doors for us into areas where the pro-life message has seldom been heard and often unwelcomed. Liberal “peace and justice” groups are starting to have Maafa 21 showings on college campuses. And some “Afro-Centric” groups who are not necessarily Christian and have generally been disinterested in the abortion issue, are now actively promoting Maafa 21.

An example of this is a California man named Keidi Obi Awadu. Keidi is the founder of Black Star Media and the Living in Black Radio Network and he has an international audience. Already, he has personally bought over 100 copies of Maafa 21 and has helped us secure someone to distribute the film in England. Keidi has also become instrumental in an effort to have it shown at predominately black colleges and universities across America. To put it mildly, Keidi and his people are on fire for Maafa 21.

Another thing we are finding is that Maafa 21 is not simply impacting the African-American community. We are already seeing whites–especially those who are high school and college aged–becoming outraged and then activated by what it documents.

Those who are familiar with Life Dynamics know that we have been responsible for some of the most explosive revelations about the abortion industry in the history of this battle. In just two high-profile examples, we uncovered the lucrative trade in baby body parts and we later exposed the abortion industry’s nationwide pedophile protection racket. But as enormous as those stories were, I can honestly tell you that I have never seen anything have the impact of Maafa 21. Although we are only at the beginning, it is clear that this film is going to grow our movement and change our image for the better. It is also bringing a fresh level of energy and excitement by recruiting the reinforcements our battle-weary troops have desperately needed for years.

So stay tuned. Like I said, we’re just getting started. By the way, if you haven’t seen Maafa 21 yet, check out the two-minute trailer for it at Maafa21.com. That website also contains some insightful comments from previous viewers.

A Few Random Thoughts

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:51:00-0500

1) Remember the Mission

For many years now, I’ve been saying that the pro-life movement must not judge success on its ability or inability to win over the pro-choice mob and that our goal is not to convert these people but to stop them. Of course, for an equal number of years there have been some in the pro-life community who challenge that position.

Fortunately, over time I have seen the percentage of those who disagree with me decrease significantly. It seems that our movement is, indeed, becoming less naïve. But such naïveté has certainly not been eradicated altogether. It still exists, and may always exist, because pro-lifers tend to be decent well-meaning people who sincerely want to assume the best about others. And while that is certainly a laudable trait, there are two fundamental truths about the abortion struggle that make this attitude unrealistic.

First, the pro-life position is one based exclusively on a moral principle. We do not oppose the slaughter of the unborn because it is impractical or because it lacks utilitarian advantages. We fight against abortion because it is so abysmally wrong that it cannot be either defended or ignored.

Second, those who most vehemently defend abortion are not just misguided or uninformed people with whom we have a philosophical disagreement. Instead, the “pro-choice” community is dominated by amoral and self-absorbed people who find concepts like “right and wrong” to be quaint and irrelevant.

Combining these two realities means that our enemies are effectively immune to any argument against the legalization of abortion. With very few exceptions, they are not winnable and, therefore, we must never evaluate our effectiveness on our ability or inability to convert them.

Now, I can appreciate why some would disagree with me on this. I have no doubt that they are much nicer people than me and, like I said a moment ago, they want to believe the best about everyone – even the Choice Mafia. If that describes you, all I ask is that you look for examples in world history where barbarians stopped what they were doing because they came to see that it was wrong. What you will discover is that inertia is a fundamental property of barbarism. It never stops on its own.

2) The Bastardization of Compassion

I have often written about the fact that, in America today, over 90 percent of children suspected of having Down syndrome are executed in the womb. I use the word “suspected” because a mistaken diagnosis in this area is not at all unheard of.

Generally, the apologists for this particular form of savagery try to rationalize it by claiming that we do it “to protect these babies against a lifetime of suffering.” Those people are lying through their teeth. They know good and well that our society does not slaughter babies with Down syndrome in order to “put them out of their misery;” we do it to put them out of our misery. Whether we want to admit it or not, these babies are killed because we find them inconvenient, unsightly, more expensive to care for than they are worth and missing many of the “zzz” human qualities we so admire in ourselves.

That is the inevitable nature of a culture that places a utilitarian rather than an intrinsic value on human life. It is a system in which those with power decide who gets to live and on what justification those who fail to qualify may be killed. Today, this philosophy defines how we approach war, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia and, if socialized medicine is in our future, it will define how we ration healthcare.

The fact is, in the “Brave New World” that America has become over the last forty years or so, the right-to-life must be earned. And for anyone we label “less than perfect,” earning that right becomes more difficult every day. In fact, just considering the Down syndrome issue alone, the inevitable question is why we should limit our compassion to the unborn. After all, if it is compassionate to kill those who, if allowed to be born, may suffer a life of misery, surely it would be even more compassionate to kill those who are already suffering such a life.

At this moment in history, we need to understand that what I’m suggesting here may be neither farfetched nor far away. That is why you and I must fight these people with every ounce of strength we can summon and we must do so until we draw the last breath God gives us.

3) A Frightening Time

It is undeniable that we've had defective people occupy the Oval Office before now and we don't have to look very far back in history to find them. Nixon was a paranoid crook whose view that the law didn't apply in his case brought the country to the edge of a Constitutional collapse. Carter was a buffoon who is proving to be as squalid a nuisance as an ex-president as he was as a sitting president. Clinton was a moral degenerate whose abysmal behavior exposed the entire system of American government to derision. And Bush 43 may have been well-intentioned but my feeling is that history is going to judge him far closer to Jimmy Carter than George Washington.

However, none of these people were nearly as dangerous or destructive as the guy who sits in that office today. During the 2008 presidential campaign, I said that the Obama phenomenon is less a political movement than a cult. Now the evidence to support that view is all around us and growing like a slimy green mold. Compared to the Obaministas, the Stepford Wives look like a herd of anarchists.

The frightening thing is, not since the Nixon administration have we seen anything like the way dissent is not tolerated. In both cases, loyalty could accurately be defined as blind devotion and unquestioned obedience as well as a willingness to be oblivious to whatever the leader does. The difference is that, in those days, if you criticized Tricky Dick you ended up on some sort of “Enemies List” and got your taxes audited. Today, anyone who says anything negative about The Grand Obama will instantly be labeled either a racist or an Uncle Tom–depending on the malefactor's skin color.

And that brings me to my latest question: is the International Olympic Committee going to be labeled “racists” now that they’ve rejected Obama’s pitch to bring the Olympics to Chicago? Or is that tactic only used in the case of Americans who dissent from the party line?

4) Caught Lying

First, the Godless Left says that abortion will not be covered under ObamaCare. But then, they fight any effort to include language that specifically excludes abortion. With a straight face, they will say it is an unnecessary waste of effort to add this one tiny paragraph to the bill – even though it is already slated to be over a thousand pages long. In other words, they are lying through their teeth. If abortion is not going to be covered, a one paragraph addition to confirm it would do no harm. Their refusal to allow this provision in the legislation is irrefutable proof that they intend to take money out of the paychecks of every American to buy abortions for other people.

What we need to be reminding them of is that the word “healthcare” relates to the prevention and/or treatment of illness, injury and disease and that pregnancy is none of those. In addition, according to the abortion industry’s own statistics, almost every elective abortion in America is done for a non-medical reason on a healthy baby and a healthy mother whose pregnancy poses no threat to either her life or physical well-being. What all this means is that, by definition, ABORTION IS NOT HEALTH CARE!

Amazingly, some Obamanistas are arguing that ObamaCare will reduce the number of abortions even if it pays for them. Of course, many of those making this claim are the same grinning idiots who tell the lie that you can be a Christian and pro-life even while working to put a pro-abortion heretic like Obama into the White House.

They are also ignoring that long-established principle of politics which says, “When you want less of something you tax it and when you want more of something you subsidize it.” I have never heard of an exception to this and, in the unlikely case that such exceptions actually exist, there is no evidence that abortion is among them. So the real question here is: just how pathetically stupid would you have to be to conclude that making abortions “free” will cause the abortion rate to drop?

Let me tell you the bottom line here. Any form of socialized medicine will eventually, if not immediately, cover elective abortion. Even if abortion is specifically excluded, the Obamanistas are banking that a future court decision will rule that this prohibition is unconstitutional. And I think they are correct in making that assumption. I can also assure you that, if national healthcare is passed, it won’t be long before a challenge to any abortion exemption is headed toward the Supreme Court. For that reason, until we return legal protection to the unborn, we cannot afford to have ANY legislation passed that would create a national healthcare system.