Posts Tagged ‘fathers’

Roseanne Barr Entirely Correct In Her Thesis Against Liberalism: ‘I’m still the same. You all moved! You all went so f–king far out…’

March 30, 2018

So Roseanne Barr is back, and appeared on Jimmy Kimmel to promote the return of her show after 20 years off the air.  That first episode was watched by more than 18 million people, simply giant ratings numbers.  Frankly, if the mainstream media networks had any honesty or integrity or virtue whatsoever, they would be promoting programs like this.  Instead, they in Stalinist style destroy such programs, the way they did when they killed Tim Allen’s Last Man Standing in spite of the fact that the show was a solid performer with superior ratings over programs the network keptincluding leftist political programs such as “Black-ish.”

Anyway, when Barr appeared on leftist-whackjobber Jimmy Kimmel’s show, this exchange took place:

“I am shocked because I know you are a socially liberal person in general,” Kimmel said.

“I’m still the same! You all moved,” she said.

“We did?” Kimmel asked.

“You all went so fucking far out you lost everybody,” Barr said.

“You’re probably right, by the way,” Kimmel reacted.

“Seriously, a lot of your audience, and including me — I just want to say this, a lot of this, no matter who we voted for we don’t want to see our president fail, you know?” she said to tepid applause.

“You want Pence for the freakin’ president?” she asked Kimmel

“No,” he said.

“Well then zip that fucking lip,” she told him.

That is exactly right, and it is what is most disastrously and dangerously wrong with liberalism and with the Democratic Party that is now owned lock, stock and barrel by the most radical ideologues.  Stop and think about Roseanne Barr’s last obviously true point: if you get rid of Trump, do you know who you’ll be calling “Mister President”????  The arch-conservative Mike Pence, that’s who.  But the left is so animalistic, if not bug-like, in it’s roach-hate that it is incapable of any manner of introspection whatsoever, and so, in wild, rabid contradiction to their own interests, they are trying to do everything imaginable to impeach and boot the non-ideological Donald Trump as president and thereby install Mike Pence who would not only be able to carry Trump voters, but get the mainstream conservatives behind him as well and guarantee a Republican victory in 2020.  Or, in other words, no thinking liberal would want Mike Pence as president; but the only problem is that there is no such THING as a “thinking liberal.”  Such creatures went extinct quite a while ago, as I can continue to prove and document.

Hey, for instance, remember just a couple presidents back, when Bill Clinton’s central message that won him the White House was “It’s the economy stupid”?  Remember that???  I mean, jobless claims have fallen to the lowest level since January 27, 1973African-American unemployment under Trump has hit the lowest rate in American historyConsumer confidence under Trump is at a 17-year high, meaning that Barack Obama never saw such great numbers.  It gets even worse for Obama, because consumer confidence throughout Obama’s entire presidency was NEGATIVE: Americans’ confidence in the economy soared 16 points during Trump’s first year in office, reaching positive territory for the first time since Gallup began tracking it in 2008.  We can go on and on with positive economic numbers.  Keep in mind, the left predicted ECONOMIC DOOM when Trump was elected; the very fact that Obama is whining to receive credit for Trump’s astonishing success is itself fantastic proof that Trump has been an awesome force for the US economy.  But Democrats not only rabidly and dishonestly refuse to give Trump credit, they don’t even give a flying damn about the awesome economy.  As Roseanne Barr points out; they want Trump to fail and they literally want America under Trump’s presidency to fail.

Here’s another example, just from the last couple days:

Forget MAGA: Trump Made America’s Oldest Gun Company Go Bankrupt
By John Bonazzo • 03/26/18 12:11pm

MAGA may actually mean Making America Gun-Free Again.
Remington was once among the nation’s largest gun and ammunition makers – it was founded in 1816, when there were only 19 U.S. states. But due to sliding sales and mounting debt, the company announced over the weekend that it was filing for bankruptcy. […]

One of the main reasons for the sales downturn was ironically the election of President Donald Trump. During his campaign, Trump claimed that “Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away and she wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

As such, gun enthusiasts began stockpiling rifles in fear of a Clinton victory. But after Trump won, sales cooled—consumers likely thought a president who was endorsed by the National Rifle Association wouldn’t infringe on their rights.

So Remington, expecting a Hillary win because that’s what everybody from the damn fake news mainstream media assured us was going to happen, gambled huge on a Clinton gun-grabber win and massively ramped up production so panicked citizens could buy guns while America was still America and we still had a viable Constitution and people still had rights in this country.  But instead Donald Trump – contrary to all the egghead liberals who were wrong and have been wrong every damn since – won.  And comforted people relaxed and didn’t buy all the guns Remington expected them to buy.  And now they had all this inventory on hand that they suddenly couldn’t sell.  Because it turns out that most Americans don’t necessarily want to have a gun; they just want to be able to buy one if they believe they need it.  And that the last thing they want is a fascist gun-grabber who does what ALL fascist totalitarians have done throughout history and strips the people of their right to defend themselves from tyranny so of course tyranny can reign supreme.

It is simply a fact that no rational intellect can dispute: Barack Hussein Obama did more for gun sales than any American president in the entire history of the republic.

Let’s consider something called “reality”:

President Barack Obama has glibly been awarded the title of the World’s Greatest Guns Salesman during his seven years in office, and it appears that his eighth and final year will be his most successful ever.

According to the FBI, the NICS background check system, which serves as a proxy for gun sales, reported 1,870,000 background checks in the month of May, the highest in recorded history and enough to re-equip the entire United States military. That is 290,000 more background checks than last May, 440,000 more than May of 2014, and 850,000 less than Obama’s first May in office in 2009.

Americans Have Bought Over 100 Million Guns During Obama’s Presidency (as of December 9, 2015).  Obama grew the gun industry by more than 158% as of April 2016In other words, if there existed a liberal or a Democrat who was not pathologically insane, no one who actually wanted fewer guns in America would have voted for Obama.

Again, the problem is that there is no such thing as a liberal or Democrat who is not pathologically insane.  They all went extinct, killed off by their own rabid, hysterical batpoop craziness.

Liberals went too far.  WAY too far.  And because they rabidly abandoned the Imago Dei, the image of God, they became mindless roaches and mindlessly created the exact opposite state of affairs that they would have wanted if they just had functioning humanity within them.

What’s truly hilarious is that, even as Obama tried to erode and destroy the American people’s right to keep and bear arms, this fascist rat-bastard hypocrite roach was brokering more arms deals than ANY president since World War II.  Because this fascist fool was FINE with Muslims having weapons; just not Americans.  The fact of the matter is that Obama was such a wicked arms dealer that his arms sales actually MORE THAN DOUBLED the hated George W. Bush’s.

Which is to say that there is going to be a very special place at the very bottom of hell for Barack Obama.  This piece of filth was truly a monster – especially by the left’s own rhetoric.

And the left would truly despise this hypocrite fascist: IF there existed such a thing as a liberal capable of moral consistency, that is.  But the last liberal capable of moral consistency faded away into extinction long ago and it is highly unlikely that the magic force of unicorn fairy-dust evolution will be able to produce another such creature ever again.

Liberal, Democrat-appointed Supreme Court Justice (retired) John Paul Stevens just publicly came out demanding a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and I demand a litmus test for any candidate for president swear that they will never appoint such a Justice.  But as I’m going to show you below, to be a Democrat is to be a lying swindling hypocrite who plays word-games with reality and with the truth and who cannot be trusted in anything whatsoever.  So these lying weasels will smugly declared, “Oh, I’m not in favor of doing the thing that I actually am totally in favor of doing.”  They’ll play the imbecilic game that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when all we had were muskets, and so all we’re allowed is muskets.  Okay, fine, you hypocrite Luddite frauds, we’re also not allowed telephones or televisions or automobiles or computers or phones or damn near anything else we didn’t have back in 1787.  And to make it even crazier, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to ANY of the things but it DOES guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

I must point out a previous article I wrote and it’s title:

The Legacy Of Barack Obama And The Democrat Party Can Be Summed Up In Four Words: ‘President Donald John Trump’

And way, way back in May of 2012 I predicted that there would be a giant backlash due to Barack Obama’s rabidly fascist policies that no liberal saw as anything other than mainstream and wonderful because they are such deluded, pathologically fascist narcissists:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame.My words on June 18, 2012

Obama gave us Trump.  Now the left wants to take Trump back and give us Pence instead.  So they can go even more rabid with frothing hate while demonically and hypocritically calling themselves the party of “tolerance.”  What the hell kind of “tolerance” do these whackjob hypocrites have????  We can literally win a national election and STILL be dismissed in terms of the most stupid, most deluded, most absurd strawman in the leftist arsenal.  If my point of view isn’t valid after a national election victory, then please explain to me why I ought to even remotely consider ANY point of view that you clowns offer.

I suppose I simply could have said what Roseanne Barr said to Jimmy Kimmel: the left went too damn far.  So damn far it was beyond UNREAL.

It is an amazing thing to view the sheer number of policies that the left now screams are the most evil things in existence that they themselves were declaring just a few years ago: whether it was on abortion, or on illegal immigration, or on homosexuality and marriage.

Consider that in 2008 BOTH political parties agreed on a moral fact of human existence:

Barack Obama in 2008:

REV. WARREN: Define marriage.

SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. You know, God’s in the mix. (Applause.)

But one political party was pathologically dishonest and lied and reneged on what it claimed so it could “fundamentally transform” what it had previously claim was the truth.

Barack Obama claimed that marriage was between one man and one woman and that he wasn’t for gay marriage “as a Christian.”  As a Christian, the Democratic Party will burn in hell forever and ever and ever according to these words that they falsely claimed they believed.  Because to be a Democrat is to be a demon-possessed lying hypocrite pathologically incapable of honesty or integrity or decency or virtue or any other good thing.

Or go back down memory lane to when the Democratic Party gave Democratic President Bill Clinton a standing ovation for these words:

PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: “All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.

The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.

That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.

In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace…

We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.” (Bill Clinton, Remarks At State Of The Union, Washington, D.C., 1/24/95)

There is simply no question whatsoever that the Democratic Party of today stands condemned as the most vile kind of traitorous vermin as rightly judged by the Democratic Party of 1995.  Working class Americans realized Obama and the Democrats were literally at WAR with them, literally intentionally giving illegal immigrants their jobs and devaluing their work if they did have jobs because of the millions of people Democrats had artificially added to the labor force competition through illegal immigration.  But Democrats don’t give a flying damn about working class Americans; they need voters.  And they’re fine illegally importing foreigners to cynically get what they cynically want.

I could go on and on about all the stuff that Democrats used to acknowledge as simply true facts but now rabidly despises as worse than the Nazis.  It’s remarkable how these fools’ heads don’t explode from trying to contain all the contradictions.  I mean, we have the new “Me Too” movement and oh, are they ever trying to give Trump hell about alleged affairs that the so-called “victims” themselves claim were entirely consensual.  Let’s forget about the legitimate allegations of rape, of overt sexual harassment, that Bill Clinton was guilty of.

George Stephanopoulos is the honored, esteemed anchor of ABC News.  Let’s go back down memory lane of George overtly threatening a journalist – oh, and a female journalist at that – who had uncovered numerous women who were claiming that not only had they had sex with Bill Clinton, but in some cases he’d even fathered their babies.  Let’s watch this living emobiement of the fact that to be a liberal is to be a pathological hypocrite in every imaginable way possible:

Why are you hypocrite fools so self-righteously coming out against Donald Trump’s lawyer for doing anything to contain any allegations of ANYTHING or allegedly making any kind of a threat to anyone to stop reporting anything?  When there’s this giant log named George Stephanopoulos and basically the entire Democratic Party of just a few years ago blocking your damn view of the speck in Donald Trump’s eye???

We can talk about Russia.  Remember how Obama told the Russian president that “After my election I have more flexibility”????  Obama bent over so Putin could sodomize this country.  It was during OBAMA’s wicked presidency that Russia played whatever election games it played while a weak, passive, cowardly fool Obama did NOTHING.  Remember when Obama arrogantly lectured Mitt Romney that “The 1980s are calling and they want their foreign policy back”???  Remember that???  And now hysterical Democrats in screaming about Russia are implicitly acknowledging what a demon-possessed moron Barack Obama was throughout his failed presidency.  The actual fact is that Russians DID collude massively; but they colluded with DEMOCRATS.  And Democrats’ very hypocritical act of screaming about Trump has itself been a massive gift of collusion with Russia and Putin.

With that said, let’s talk about Hillary.  Let’s first point out that Hillary Clinton, in all of her damn demagoguery over the so-called supposed “pay gap” between men and women actually HERSELF paid her female staffers less than she paid her male staffersAnd if that isn’t enough, the Clinton Foundation itself had a massive pay gap.  So the last person you’d want representing women on this statistic alone would be Hillary Clinton.  Just saying.

Keep in mind, this election was a bipolar choice between Hillary or Donald Trump.  People chose.  And married women, and in particular white married women, chose for Donald Trump over Hillary.  Why did they do that???

Hillary Clinton told the world this:

“[Democrats] do not do well with white men and we don’t do well with married, white women,” Clinton explained. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”

Which is to say that women are strong, tough and decisive.  But of course, simultaneously, they are weak, pathetic and think whatever thought they are allowed to think if and only if their husbands give them permission.  Now, proceeding from Hillary’s rationale (as a white woman), she would had she been elected president only done what her husband told her to do.  But her husband is a rapist and serial sexual predator.

I hope you see the sheer ridiculousness of this idiocy.  But Hillary Clinton in mutual contradiction ran her campaign carpetbagging simultaneously on her husband’s coattails and on the mantras of feminism both at the same time.  And also in mutual contradiction, she was this strong, tough, decisive woman whenever it suited her; but every time she was criticized she instantaneously transformed into a helpless victim.  And that is exactly how feminism itself works: they are mutual exclusively self-referentially contradictory things at the same time.

This capacity to say things and believe things that simply fly in the face of any and all credibility should help inform you to try to comprehend how anyone could believe what follows:

When it comes to the craziest example of whackjob, pathological liberal moral insanity, I saved the very best for last.  I had to create a transcript of Tucker Carlson’s interview with University of Toronto psychology professor, Jordan Peterson.  He offered this in response to the now at least 71 different “gender options” we supposedly now have:

The radical left insists that gender is a social construct and that’s just simply not true. So the scientific data on that are absolutely crystal clear. No reasonable scientist disagrees. And so they’re all foaming at the mouth because I’m poking holes in their cherished notions. And they like to think that people are completely malleable because that means that people can be made over in their ideological image.

Peterson points out that his views are “more common than you think,” stating that “My views on gender are shared widely in the personality community. Anyone who understands personality and is a credible scientist knows the difference between men and women in personality should be contributed primarily to biological factors. This isn’t contentious. The only people its’ contentious around are gender ideologues. They’ve already lost the scientific battle, so they’re taking it to the legislative front to enforce their views. So, they’re really not contentious viewpoints, they’re mainstream science. And we’re criticized all the time for spouting pseudo-science. It’s not pseudo-science; it’s mainstream science. And people who know the literature aren’t disputing this: it’s been known at least since the 1990s.

The Canadian government built a social-constructivist view of gender into the law. And that’s just incorrect. The idea that biological sex, gender expression, gender identity and sexual preference have no relationship to one another, that they vary independently, there’s almost nothing you can claim that’s more false than that. But now it’s being written into the law. It’s just patently absurd. It’s actually a telling commentary on the state of political discourse across the West, that something like that can actually happen. But I think that it’s equality of outcome that’s the real pathological desire. That’s the bad one.

Well then, Tucker asked, why are people whose views are not rooted in science, but instead in emotion and superstition, dominating our public conversation, and punishing anyone who doesn’t disagree? How did they get so much power?

Look, I actually think there’s a technical reason for that. It’s obvious that things can go too far on the right and they can go too far on the left. And it’s kind of easy to put a box around people who go too far on the right: you can just look at claim’s of racial superiority. But it’s not so easy to put a box around people who go too far on the left. There’s not a single thing you can point to that they do that has the same sort of red flag nature as claims of racial superiority. So it’s hard for people who are left-leaning, say I’m concerned with inequality and that sort of thing, to dissociate themselves from those who have clearly gone too far. And the problem is we really don’t know where the red flags are in leftist territory. Now for me it’s equality of outcome that is a good so-called equity. That’s a red flag. But it doesn’t seem as immediately pathological as claims of racial superiority. So it’s harder for people on the left to dissociate themselves from the people who, well, would do everyone in, essentially.

This in contrast to the college professor, the moderator to all the “tolerance” that the left preaches it is so good at, for trying to humiliate and ultimately rabidly “intolerating” the student who raised the question that hey, maybe there were only TWO genders, the way actual scientific biology says there are.  This crap happens all the time with ZERO consequences for these rabid ideologue professors; contrast that with the living hell Laura Ingraham is being put through for going after David Hogg (“How COULD you???  He’s just a CHILD!!!”).  Liberals are the worst hypocrites on earth.  And there is no one on earth, including ISIS terrorists, more extremist and totalitarian and Stalinist in their views than the liberal progressive.  You will agree with them or they will bury you, destroy you, and utilize raw official power to do so.  Liberal progressives are now the most self-righteous, the most Pharisaical, beings in all existence.  And when the entirety of all human history opposes them (they imposed by rabid fiat within the last few years what had never previously existed in any civilization in all history), when any kind of legitimate science opposes them (when they find the 69 other chromosomes besides “X” and “Y” maybe they’ll begin to have some kind of legitimate case), they follow the same mentality as the IED-wearing terrorist and simply go batpoop until whoever their target for hate is is publicly destroyed by a demonic cultural process.

Peterson’s assessment was so brilliant simply because it is so obviously true.  Consider the bald, naked FACT that communists murdered more than 100 million of their own people just during peacetime alone.  Chairman Mao was responsible for as many as EIGHTY MILLION DEATHS during his “Great Leap Forward.”  Understand that this mass-murdering psycho was actually lionized by top Obama administration officials!!!!

What makes this guy so right is the fact that Obama told America that The War on Inequality Is the New War on Poverty.  And the 20th century actually proved that this is THE most evil idea in the entire history of the human race.

This “equality of outcome” has ALWAYS been THE most cherished goal of the most wicked ideology in the entire history of the human race.  We’re all going to be so “equal” that we’ll all be equal in that we’ll all be JUST AS DEAD AS EVERYONE ELSE.

Pause in horror to consider the hell on earth Mao unleashed as he sought to impose the liberal dream and socialist goal of “equality of outcome” so everyone would be the same:

Chairman Mao:

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.”

Chairman Mao:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

Frankly, the fact of the matter is that Nazism itself came from the left: “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  You tell me if there was a “Socialist American Workers Party,” which side of the political spectrum it would be on?  The fact of the matter is that the Nazis were a “rightwing” party ONLY in the sense that they were the “far right” of the whackjob hard core radical LEFT.  Hitler and his Nazis were avowed Darwinists and just like Marx and the communists, the Nazis got their doctrines of hate from Darwinism.  Hitler stated in the beginning of his rise to power that, “A stronger race will drive out the weaker ones, for the vital urge in its ultimate form will break down the absurd barriers of the so called humanity of individuals to make way for the humanity of nature which destroys the weak to give their place to the strong.”  Pure Darwinism.  Hitler stated as his Darwinian-survival-of-the-fittest-based Nazi regime was coming crashing down that, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  As the disastrous war based on Darwinism came to a vicious end, Hitler issued what has infamously become known as his “Nero Decree,” saying, “There is no […] need to worry about saving what is necessary for the German people to survive. … On the contrary, it is much better that we ourselves destroy everything. […] Our people has shown that it is the weakest; the future belongs exclusively to the people of the east, which is the strongest.”  All of these statements are Darwinian to the core.  Just as was the garbage about purifying the race so that the German Arian would be the strongest and most dominant race.  Hearken to Darwin’s less-famous subtitle for his “Origin of the Species:” On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.
Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242). Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust.  Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy.  But it wasn’t just the Jew that Hitler was willing to exterminate as being “biologically inferior.” Adolf Hitler – who had made the Holocaust of the “biologically unfit” and “sub human” Jew the centerpiece of his campaign to create a “Master” Aryan race – ultimately made his “master race” the victim of his hateful Darwinian views.  The simple fadt of the matter is that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms and his total war was an example of Darwinian survival of the fittest in action. He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and ultimately believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated and replaced by a more fit race just as Darwinism taught.

And this atheist and Darwinist crap is all pumped out of the vile soul of the ideological LEFT.  The left has followed the same script that the communists gave them: identify what people realize is evil and demonize their ideological opponents for it – even though they practice the very identical same evil themselves; and even in fact when they are the ONLY ONES who practice that evil.  So the left says the Nazis were “right wing” because they were militaristic, demonically ignoring the fact that the largest militaries ever assembled were assembled by COMMUNISTS.  Think of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. whose military dwarfed our own; think the People’s Republic of China; think of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  No one other than a fool or a liar would claim that “militarism” is “right wing.”  Similarly, they claim that “nationalism” makes a regime right wing, again demonically ignoring the fact that throughout his fight against Hitler, Stalin miraculously transformed his communism into nationalism, urging his people to fight for “Mother Russia” again and again and again.  And today for that matter, the communist People’s Republic of China is FIERCELY nationalistic and is economically employing a model far more similar to socialist fascism that pure communism.  Or they will with straight faces lecture us that the Nazis were “right wing” because they were “racist.”  Again, the model of demonizing whatever is most evil as belonging exclusively to their ideological enemies.  The U.S.S.R. murdered tens of millions of non-Russian people; today the Chinese still persecute non-Chinese ethnic peoples such as the Tibetans.  Our own “progressive left” in the United States has frequently employed hard core racism, and I still remember a leftist SEIU union head telling his very own union workers as “so fucking rabidly racist.”  In my very own family, one of the few rabid Democrats in 2008 refused to vote for Barack Obama.  Why?  Because he said, “I won’t vote for that fucking nigger.”  When I would have happily voted for Herman Cain, or later for Ben Carson.

I still remember a true ideological coward named Barack Hussein Obama dishonestly, vindictively and hypocritically attacking the Republicans as being “social Darwinists.”  When he himself is the true Darwinist.  Social Darwinism is logically and morally ENTAILED if Darwinism is true because the weak die out and the most fit survive.  And if that is true in the whole cosmos, then without any logical or moral question it would necessarily be true of any society that correctly followed this universal law of the universe.  Evolution and Darwinism logically and consistently applied would apply as an axiom the policy that the weak need to perish so the stronger can better survive, end of story.  But to be a Democrat is to be the worst and the most despicable kind of moral coward.  They constantly play the rhetorical game of deceiving people that they don’t believe what they clearly believe.  And so Democrats believe in evolution while simultaneously implicitly recognizing that theirs is an utterly evil ideology.  Stalin murdered at least forty million of his own people and Mao murdered as many as eighty million of his own people: but neither did so until they had total power over their people and until they had that total control abetted by leftist gun seizure laws that left the people weaponless and defenseless they constantly talked about how they cared about the people.

So to bring the point home, Democrats aren’t honest.  Like Obama with marriage, Democrats refuse to tell you what they truly believe.  They hide behind a world of slandering lies and fake outrage rhetoric.  Democrats used to actually believe in God, but they are now the official party of rabid secular humanist atheism.  Just like the communists who alone actually DO have “separation of church and state” in their Constitution.  Article 124 of the Soviet Constitution reads, “In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church.”  A better name for “communism” is “official state atheism,” since every single communist regime has in fact been officially atheist.  That’s the REAL premise upon which the evil regime is truly based.  Just like the Darwinan Nazis whose true war crime was actually believing the evil otherwise known as Darwinian evolution.  And just like the godless communist and the Darwinist Nazis, Democrats likewise want to strip the people of their right to resist their totalitarian power that they are seeking.

But not even the most ardently ideological, the most whackjob Nazi, Maoist or Stalinist, ever dared to dream that we could screw around with the very nature of gender and sexual identity.  That required a level of shocking human depravity that dwarfed even the most wild imaginings of even these most wicked bugs.

As of today, Democrats are directly responsible for the mass murder of SIXTY MILLION of THE most innocent human beings in their abortion mills.  Democrats will one day stand before God condemned as being ten times more evil than the damn Nazis; and every single Democrat will scream in the agony of the lowest pit of hell for a trillion times a trillion millennia for every single NANOSECOND that they callously ripped from these 60 million babies employing the same damned-by-God “logic” that the Nazis employed arguing that Jews weren’t fully human and therefore could be exterminated.

Abortion is a war of extermination not just against babies, but more directly against FATHERHOOD.  If that baby in the womb isn’t a baby, isn’t a human being, then what the hell IS a “father”???  What the hell did he “father”???  A lifeless lump of goop, Democrats assure us.  A thing that can be exterminated without thought or consequences, they assure us.  If that is in any way true, then any father can simply walk away from his kid without any thought or any consequence just as easily as any mother can murder the innocent human life growing in her womb as a result of what she and that father participated in creating.

Again, even the Nazis weren’t this damn depraved.  Heinrich Himmler told his SS who were carrying out the Final Solution that they had to be strong, that they were simply doing what had to be done, what was necessary, in his own version of the “make abortion safe, legal and rare” rationale.  Just like everything else, the Democratic Party has also become so warped it even now betrays the warped ideology it used to hold such that there is now a rabid, militant approval of what used to be something that was deemed sad, but necessary.  Which would be the moral equivalent of Himmler boasting in the Final Solution, exulting in it.  You could be a Nazi and not even know about, let alone believe in, the Final Solution of the Jewish race.  But now you can’t be a Democrat and not believe in abortion as the final solution for millions upon millions of babies who are selected for extermination.

The Democrat Party has made war on fathers and on fatherhood for a generation now.  And it is amazing how sick and toxic a place they have “fundamentally transformed” our society into as a direct result of their war on fatherhood, their war on children, their hell on earth policies that every single one of them will one day have to stand before God Almighty and give an account for.

And if you’re going to go to total, Hitler-style war-of-extermination-style wars on fatherhood and fathers and children, well, in bowling-analogy terms you’ve simply got to try to pick up the spare and similarly declare total war on so-called “toxic masculinity” and on boys.

It is frankly a truly amazing thing that has the left screeches about the crisis of “toxic masculinity,” in actual scientific fact men’s sperm counts have quite literally PLUMMETED.  “Sperm counts dropped by more than half over nearly four decades,” a massive scientific study recently found.  Which is to say to whatever extent there IS a crisis of “toxic masculinity,” it is quite literally the very OPPOSITE of what the left falsely claims it is.  What is in actual scientific fact “toxic” is that males AREN’T getting more masculine; they are getting less and less and LESS so.  Here’s the ACTUAL crisis of toxic masculinity:

The assessment, one of the largest ever undertaken, brings together the results of 185 studies between 1973 and 2011.

Dr Levine, an epidemiologist, told the BBC that if the trend continued humans would become extinct.

Liberalism is a mindless phenomenon, just as a colony of roaches is a mindless phenomenon.  These bugs will just do what they do.  They will not quit.  They have been programmed to mindlessly advance much the way Mao’s communist army mindlessly charged the U.S. military at the Chosin Reservoir in Korea in 1950.  And if these leftist ideologues fail to charge screaming machine-gun toting commissars will gun them down from behind.  Because the left only wants to seize guns from the people, not from the commissar-class who gets to control the people.  The left will not stop until males are extinct and the last feminist triumphantly dances on the last male’s grave, freed from the God-given burden of bringing the last baby into the world.  THAT is the assured result of liberalism, the cherished goal, the dream.

As the REAL toxic crap from leftist ideologues calling themselves “educators” persecuted boys and demonized maleness and manhood and basically indoctrinated a culture of boys being ashamed to be what they were biologically – even as the same rabid fools dismissed the very notion of “biology” itself in their Stalinist rather than scientific assessment that gender is a social construct – boys have simply been first falling behind, then dropping behind, then dropping out.  The left is literally targeting and attacking as unacceptable even the very words “man” and “male,” let alone being a man or being encouraged or even allowed to ACT like one.  As an example, the widely-used online writing and grammar resource by Purdue University encourages college students to avoid ‘generic use of MAN and other words with masculine markers.’

Men are becoming less male because that is the only choice the screaming, rabid, leftist culture that simultaneously depicts itself as “the tolerant ones” will allow.  And the decline of men simply logically follows the extinction-path generated by the left, by liberals, by the Democratic Party, of fathers and fatherhood.  THIS has been the longest war in American history, the war on men.  And men have surrendered but the feminist left won’t stop with mere victory.  Fewer and fewer men are working; and the men who are working are working fewer hours than ever beforeMillions of prime age men are simply missing from the economy as the ravages of liberal policy have ripped their dreadful toll into our culture.  As a result of these simple facts that liberals simply mindlessly deny as much as Hitler denied he was losing the war, fewer and fewer men are getting married because they don’t have the economic resources to get married.  Which means fewer and fewer women are getting married because they no longer view men as viable partners.

And as a result of this war, the very group that denies the reality of biology has created a species-threatening biological reality.  We have diminished sperm counts.  That is NOT a sign of masculinity, but rather the exact freaking OPPOSITE.  But that’s just reality, and liberalism is a rabid denial of reality.

And yes, the sad, assured result of these liberal policies which have utterly destroyed the American middle class primarily by destroying men, young men are increasingly becoming bitter, resentful, angry.  And they are increasingly acting out.  And that means more and more violence.  Because males have been treated like animals and what the hell do you expect animals to do???

Yeah.  The left went too far.  WAY too far.

The only problem is that the time to stop them was nearly forty years ago.  Because everything that has followed since Roe v. Wade in 1973 was the equivalent of a snowball running downhill until it became an avalanche.

And now it may very well be too late for our species.

Advertisements

Trump, Abortion And Democrats Who Say Only MEN And BABIES Should Be ‘Punished’ When A Child Is Conceived

March 31, 2016

[Update, April 1, 2016]: The soul of the Democrat Party swims in lies, with lying liberals routinely demagoguing and outright slandering conservative/Republican positions that they literally invented out of their own warped and perverted minds.  Unfortunately, Donald Trump just makes that dishonest Democrat tactic all too easy.

Take abortion: do you know how many women have been “punished” by even the most pro-life Republican states in the entire history of the republic?  The answer will likely surprise you, given what the Democrat Party says and what their propaganda machine – a.k.a. the mainstream media – report: in the entire 20th century, exactly two women have gone to any criminal court in any state for participating in their own abortions.  While it was a criminal offense in 31 states, it simply wasn’t done for the very simple reason that the pro-life movement has ALWAYS regarded the mother as one of the victims of abortion.  The first case, in 1911, was thrown out by the trial court outright.  The second case was thrown out by a higher court, which said in doing so, “the woman who commits an abortion on herself is regarded rather as the victim than the perpetrator of the crime.”

In other words, the pro-life movement and the pro-life Republican Party have NEVER punished or targeted women over abortion.

But the ignorance and demagoguery of Donald Trump, combined with the rabid deceit of liberals, makes it easy to fabricate a bogeyman where none does and none has EVER truly existed.

I think of Bruce – now “Caitlyn” – Jenner.  It’s interesting.  I disagree with what Bruce Jenner did to himself; but I’m nowhere even CLOSE to the hate of liberals in terms of intolerance.  Let me quote Jenner on that:

“I have gotten more flak for being a conservative Republican than I have for being trans,” Jenner said.

To wit: conservative evangelical Christians think that Bruce Jenner is sadly confused and wrong for advancing his transgender issues; liberals believe that being a Republican is EVIL and they go after us with a viciousness that we’ve NEVER used against them.  Which is why we’re seeing such fascist leftist hate being directed at Trump rallies and Trump supporters now; with liberals going INSIDE Trump events to violently disrupt them (like Brownshirt Nazis of Hitler’s day) and with liberals using the “system” to attack Trump supporters (which was what the Nazis did when they had the power to do so).  And as the liberal-leaning Atlantic points out, these fascist liberals are literally generating more Trump support because increasingly more and more people are just beyond fed up with rabid leftist fascism.

The fact of the matter is that conservatives have NEVER attacked liberals and used a fascist system to impose “law” and “justice” on those who break their rules the way liberals have routinely done.  So conservatives say, “We think you’re wrong, but we won’t take away your rights,” whereas liberals say, “You’re EVIL, and we’re entitled to do ANYTHING to stop you!”  And so while liberals are now literally using the power of the state to destroy Christians who are resolved to follow their Bibles and refuse to participate in homosexual marriage against their consciences, conservatives have never twisted the law to work the other way.    [End update].

So Donald Trump came out with a policy on abortion that lasted for like an hour before he came out with a completely different policy on abortion.  Let’s start with what he just said and then move to what he just said that wildly flies in the face of what he just said (sorry if you’re confused, but I wrote it correctly):

Trump said:

Trump’s initial comments on Wednesday came after a lengthy exchange with MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who pressured the Republican to give a yes or no answer to the question, “should abortion be punished.”

“There has to be some form of punishment,” Trump said during a televised town hall event.

“For the woman?” Matthews asked, to which Trump replied, “Yes.”

Trump declined to specify how women should be punished if they underwent an illegal abortion.

And then right after that Trump said:

Donald Trump scrambled to clarify his position on abortion Wednesday after he said women who undergo the procedure should face “some form of punishment” should the practice be outlawed.

Several hours later — after widespread condemnation from Trump’s presidential rivals and even leading anti-abortion groups — he walked back his remarks, releasing a statement in which he said that women who obtain abortions are victims and that doctors who perform the service are the ones who should be punished.

“If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman,” Trump said. “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”

And Trump has previously said:

Trump had previously declined to answer the question about what penalties he would support for women who undergo abortions or doctors who perform them.
“I just don’t want to talk about that right now,” Trump said during a news conference January in Iowa. “Everybody knows my views and I think my views are very plain,” Trump said.

But before Trump previously said that he previously said this:

Throughout his campaign, Trump has faced questions about the authenticity of his position on abortion. He said he was “pro-choice in every respect” in a 1999 interview, though he said he hated the “concept of abortion.”

So what’s Donald Trump’s actual position on abortion?  Who the hell knows???  Donald Trump’s view on abortion is as clear as feces.

The mainstream media propaganda mill wants to frame the Republican Party with every stupidly-worded utterance that comes out of Trump’s mouth, but in point of fact both the rival GOP candidates immediately denounced Trump’s “women should be punished” statement.

That that “see how evil the ‘anti-abortion’ conservatives are?” meme flies in the face of actual reality doesn’t mean a flying DAMN to the left as this quote from the same CNN article on Trump and abortion that I cite above shows:

His comments on Wednesday appeared to be the latest in Trump’s persistent efforts to court the support of socially conservative voters. But his efforts backfired as three leading anti-abortion groups swiftly criticized Trump’s comments.
March for Life released the toughest statement of the three groups, calling Trump’s remarks “completely out of touch with the pro-life movement.”
“Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby. Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about,” the president of the group’s education and defense fund, Jeanne Marcini, said in a statement.
The National Right to Life Committee noted in a statement that it has never supported penalties against women who undergo abortions.
The Susan B. Anthony List chalked up Trump’s comments to his recent opposition to abortion rights and said punishments should only be dished out to “the abortionist.”

“Donald Trump said…” is hardly a statement anyone ought to believe.

This is rather like Donald Trump being “strong” on ISIS – after saying the United States has no role in the Middle East and we should sit back and allow Russia to deal with the terrorist monster.  You know, until San Bernardino, when he started saying the precise opposite.

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump late Monday offered his approach for fighting with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“Why are we knocking ISIS, and yet at the same time we’re against [Syrian President Bashar] Assad? Let them fight, take over the remnants,” Trump said on CNN’s “Out Front,” calling Syria a “total catastrophe.”

“But more importantly, let Russia fight ISIS, if they want to fight them, in Syria,” Trump said. “We can fight them in Iraq,” Trump added.

“Let ISIS and Syria fight. And let Russia, they’re in Syria already, let them fight ISIS,” Trump said. “Let Russia take care of ISIS.” – Donald Trump, September 29, 2015

Versus:

I would just bomb those suckers, and that’s right, I’d blow up the pipes, I’d blow up the refineries, I’d blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left. – Donald Trump, November 13, 2015

This is rather like Donald Trump being “strong” on allowing Syrian refugees to pour into the United States on humanitarian grounds.  You know, until after San Bernardino when he started blathering the exact opposite:

The United States should take in some refugees from Syria, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Tuesday night.

“I hate the concept of it, but on a humanitarian basis, you have to,” Trump said in his first Fox News appearance in two weeks, appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor.” – Donald Trump, Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Versus what he says now:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump called President Obama a “fool” this week for his plans to resettle thousands of Syrian refugees in the U.S.

“Well look, if the president is somebody, you know — you could say he’s a fool, in a certain way — because everybody is saying don’t do it,” Trump said Thursday night on Fox News.
“He’s very arrogant, he’s very stubborn, he doesn’t want to listen to anybody, and he’s so wrong,” the business mogul added during the interview with host Sean Hannity.  – Donald Trump, December 2015

Jonah Goldberg previously said something to this effect and it’s true: on abortion and many of these other issues, Donald Trump is a liberal who is pretending to be a conservative and saying things that a liberal believes conservatives think.  The reason this cynical, hypocritical tactic has worked so well for him is simply this: most of his supporters are NOT conservative, but are in fact liberals and moderates.

But that underscores my two biggest problems with Trump.  He’s NOT a genuine conservative and has never been one, and my biggest problem with Donald Trump of all is that he’s been on the opposite damn side of EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN.  Anyone who believes he’ll do any particular thing is an idiot.  Because he’s said the precise opposite and very likely not very long ago.

In this way, Trump is like Obama when Obama says something like, “As I’ve said” or “As I’ve been saying,” he is saying something markedly different from what he actually WAS saying.  And then there are the legions of “roachellectuals” who will explain what Obama actually meant to say when he said something that flies in the face of honesty or reality.

Let’s not forget the 37 documented times Obama said one thing and did the opposite on ObamaCare; let’s not forget all the other DOZENS of lies Obama told about ObamaCare.  Let’s not forget the 22 documented times Obama said one thing and did the opposite of what he said on illegal immigration and executive amnesty in flagrant violation of our nation’s laws.  An d all the other weasel games this fascist tyrant has played with our laws because he is not an honest man.

And Trump aint no different.

So we get to abortion and we can plainly see that Donald Trump doesn’t have a real core on this issue; he just winged it and then so what if he said the exact opposite???  So what if a man who said for DECADES that he was “pro-choice” in every respect” is now mouthing a position more extreme than anybody who actually dearly holds the position?  The fact of the matter is that Trump has never thought this issue through, that it is NOT a deeply-held conviction for him; but that he is merely saying whatever he thinks the itching ears of the people he is trying to fool want to hear so he can clinch the nomination and win the contest.

This is why Jimmy Carter basically said, “We can work with this guy Trump because he stands for NOTHING but Donald Trump”:

Former President Jimmy Carter told the British Parliament on Wednesday that if he had to choose between Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, he’d prefer to see Trump win the White House.

“I think I would choose Trump,” the liberal former president said to the House of Lords, when asked about the U.S. presidential race, “which may surprise some of you, but the reason is Trump has proven already that he’s completely malleable. I don’t think he has any fixed opinions that he would really go to the White House and fight for.”

By contrast, Mr. Carter said, “Ted Cruz is not malleable. He has far right-wing policies, in my opinion, that would be pursued aggressively if and when he would become president.”

What does Trump stand for?  Whatever is convenient for him to stand for at any particular moment.  You know, until he can bargain and horse-trade sacred positions in his “art of the deal.”

So no, conservatives don’t want to punish women.  The only people who DO want to actually punish women and damn near everyone else are LIBERALS, which is precisely what Donald Trump has been for nearly all of his life before he decided to turn the GOP nomination into a circus freak show.

I’ve written about Political Correctness and keep my description in a file so I can spit it out without agonizing over how to word the idiocy:

Being politically correct is not just a leftist way to make overly-sensitive people feel better. It was designed by early Marxists in Russia and the left continues to execute the tactic today: if you can control words, you can control thought; if you can control thought, you can control actions.  “PC” is an enormous, sophisticated and highly-coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by  redefining it, by controlling the cultural arguments by shaping the “acceptable” language people are allowed to use. And people with incredibly radical agendas have been exploiting this tactic for decades and it has succeeded.

I open a newspaper or watch a mainstream media news broadcast and I can’t be “pro-life.”  Read that CNN article I cite above again: they’re not “pro-life groups” on CNN’s description; rather they are “anti-abortion” groups.  If we were actually allowed to be “pro”-something it would depict a positive movement; and the left won’t have that.  The same thing with my being “pro-marriage”; I’m not “anti-gay,” I merely continue to hold the SAME VIEW OF MARRIAGE THAT EVERY SINGLE SOCIETY ON EARTH HELD FROM CREATION UNTIL A FEW YEARS AGO.  But for the wicked people who imposed a wicked view on society that had never existed in ANY civilization up to now re-wrote the lexicon so that I’m not “pro-marriage” but rather “anti-gay.”  It’s an unrelenting effort, and stupid people have fallen for it.

And this is a stupid nation on a planet full of stupid people.

The Democrat Party is so hateful it is pure-and-simple ANTI-LIFE.  That’s what “pro-abortion” actually means, that you are a rabid hater and exterminator of human life.  And thus you have directly participated in the torture-murder of sixty million innocent human beings since 1973.

I always am amazed at the moral AND intellectual vapid stupidity of the left.  They tell me that an unborn baby is not a human being.  Let’s consider something called “logic”: it is “human” by virtue of its parents; it is a “being” by virtue of the fact that it is a living, existing thing: IT IS A HUMAN BEING.  Let’s try something called “science”: Let’s run through the taxonomic system that classifies every single living thing that ever existed on planet earth with our unborn baby: That “fetus” (which is Latin for “unborn child” by the way) is classified as Kingdom-Animal; Phylum-Chordata; Class-Mammalia; Order-Primate; Family-Hominid; Genus-Homo; and Species-Sapiens.  Just like every human being whose life is precious.

And finally, let’s consider God’s Word which resolves any and all conflict for anyone capable of true morality:

You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
and knit me together in my mother’s womb.

Thank You for making me so wonderfully complex!
Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.

You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.

You saw me before I was born.
Every day of my life was recorded in Your book.

Every moment was laid out
before a single day had passed. — Psalm 139:13-16

There’s a reason that the fire of hell is eternal, Democrat.  In fact, YOU are the reason.  Because eternity itself won’t last long enough for you to suffer for all the horror you are guilty of as you scream for a trillion times a trillion millennia to the trillionth power for every single NANOSECOND that you brutally stole from every single ONE of those innocent children you personally participated in murdering.

There’s going to come a reckoning when you ultimately stand before a Great White Throne and discover that God created that soul and you will be sentenced for every single one of those sixty-plus million times that you determined that YOU were god over that soul and brutally snuffed out innocent human life.

So let’s get to the gist of this: Democrats like Hillary Clinton trot out with such righteous indignation at Donald Trump wanting to “punish” women.

When they want to punish MEN, punish FATHERS.

Contemplate with me the “logic” of abortion.  At the moment of conception, frankly lasting until even AFTER the baby emerges living and breathing from the womb as far as many Democrats are concerned, a baby is NOT a “baby,” but rather something called “by-products of conception.”

It is an immoral injustice to fathers and to fatherhood every bit as much as it is a rabid deprivation of life of an innocent human being who deserved LIFE and was deprived of that life by a Democratic Party that is now TEN TIMES more guilty of moral crimes than the Nazis were.

Because to be a Democrat is to be a rabid hater of truth and reality just as you are a rabid hater of life.  And so in the same way your citizen-of-hell judges gazed into the Constitution like it was some kind of crystal ball and found “penumbras” formed by “emanations” to create a “right” literally out of thin air where none had ever existed before, you in the same manner created DEATH out of thin air when every society before you treasured human life and thanked God or the gods for it.

That’s why the Hippocratic Oath that every true doctor follows to this day says “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”  At least until you “created” a blasphemy of the original to mock the sacred intent of the original.  Now blasphemous Democrats have blasphemous “doctors” murdering people and dedicating their “art” to death.

As the Word of God declares:

There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death. — Proverbs 14:12

The road to hell is paved with Democrats and their “good intentions.”  And Democrats call their intentions “good” because:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! – Isaiah 5:20

But their “good intentions” aside, their way is LITERALLY the way of death.  And to vote Democrat today is to declare, “If there is a God, let me scream in the endless suffering of God’s agonizing fiery hell forever and ever and ever.”  You know – as Jesus put it THREE TIMES for emphasis – “where ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched'” (Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46 and Mark 9:48).

But you go ahead, Democrat.  You vote for hell.

But let’s continue with the “logic” of abortion: that baby is NOT a baby, but a non-human “by-product of conception.”  Okay, so mommy can kill it.  Because she’s NOT a mommy, is she?  To be a “mommy,” that thing in her womb would have to be a human being, and of course every single bound-for-screaming-hell Democrat knows that it’s NOT a human being.

Ah, but that “logic” swiftly evaporates when it comes to “daddy.”  Because what was that thing when “daddy” last had anything whatsoever to do with it?  It was NOT a baby, was it?  No, it was a non-human “by-product of conception” and worthy of death and destruction and quite literally the dumpster.  On Democrat-devil-logic.

But do Democrats let “daddy” off the hook?  NOOOOOOO.  Rather they scream with ever fiber of their rabid hate, “PUNISH HIM!  HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE!  MAKE HIM PAY!!!”  The woman isn’t held responsible for her pregnancy; only the man is.  According to the “punishment” logic of the Democrat Party.

And this same man who is very clearly NOT a “father” by the identical same Democrat-devil-logic that was fabricated to allow a woman to murder her own baby is somehow held fully accountable for that “child” that he clearly could not have had anything to do with “fathering.”

That poor bastard has no say whatsoever in whether a baby lives or whether it dies.  But if “mommy” arbitrarily decides that what the hell, I flipped a damn coin and I’m keeping the baby,” well, then, he is PUNISHED by Democrats and by Democrat-devil-logic for the next eighteen years as he is legally compelled to pay “child support” for that thing which by their own devil logic was “by-products of conception” when he last had anything whatsoever to do with anything.

It’s either a child at the moment of conception or “the father” isn’t the father and CAN’T be “the father” and shouldn’t be held responsible in any way for anything.

Think about it: Democrats say that the FATHER ought to be forcibly compelled to provide child support.  For a child they rabidly denied WAS a child in the first place while they denied that the “father” was the FATHER of that child.

Should a father be compelled to support his child?  Of course he should; but that strictly implies that he is RECOGNIZED as “the father” of “a child” to BEGIN WITH.

The rabid Democrat denial of fatherhood has destroyed the family.  Every man who has sexual relations with a woman with the result that for some mysterious reason something called “by products of conception” that weirdly coincides on a one-to-one basis with a CHILD has the Democrat Party pseudo-logic to fall back to: “I’m not the father of anything.  I’m outta here.”

If I’m a “father,” then that’s MY kid in the womb where only Adam and Eve of all human beings who ever lived didn’t begin their lives.  That’s MY kid.  And if I am a “father” in any way, any shape or any form, I have a RIGHT to whether my kid lives or dies.  And it is therefore rather obvious the resentment and bitterness and subsequent abandonment that “fathers” have implemented in giant numbers since they were told that a) they WEREN’T fathers and had NO rights to their children unless b) the “mother” of that child made the arbitrary, random decision that she wanted to keep that child in which case c) some irrational and immoral “legal” process determines that wait-a-minute, it’s in our interests to label you the “father” after all: so pay up.

So please don’t misunderstand because devil-logic now permeates the rotting carcass of American pseudo-civilization: it’s not that Democrats are opposed to “punishment” at ALL; in fact they LOVE punishment.

Democrats merely demand that the baby be punished and the father be punished and the role of fatherhood itself be punished and any hint of traditional, sacred, godly marriage be punished.

The Democrat Party has ALWAYS been the party of Satan, since it fought a vicious war over slavery when their demonic “good intentions” led them to declare that black people were not “human beings.”

Watch as the mainstream media propaganda mill asks every Republican if he or she thinks “women should be punished.”  It’s a nice “gotcha question” and “reporters” LOVE hammering Republicans with gotcha questions.  But they won’t ever ask Hillary Clinton why she said Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) is her hero when Margaret Sanger said that “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”  Just as you won’t see them asking Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat why they hold a fundamentally irrational and immoral position that punishes “fathers” for the children they conceive while simultaneously holding that they are “fathers” who therefore have rights over their children to begin with.

The fact of the matter is that from the very moment of conception, we are human beings and as human beings we possess infinite, incommensurable value and that to ignore that fact and murder an innocent human being is a terrible moral crime against the very God who created us in His image.  The fact of the matter is, that every single father owes his child his SUPPORT and every single father owes her child LIFE.

And the fact of the matter is that the Democrat Party IS the party of wickedness in America and one day there most surely WILL be “some form of punishment.”

In this world, you go ahead and mock me, Democrat.  But your destiny is to ultimately stand before the Great White Throne (Revelation 20:11-15) and I wouldn’t be you for all the money and for all the pleasure in this world.

 

Of Jesus, The Woman Caught In Adultery, Public Morality, The Law – And The Consequences Of Ignoring Our Developing Social Crisis

August 7, 2012

I had an interesting discussion with an intelligent young libertarian that we didn’t have time to finish.  It involved the libertarian (and liberal) notion that morality shouldn’t be legislated.  An interesting fact about that view is that the very view itself amounts to legislating your morality as opposed to the person’s morality that holds that morality SHOULD be legislated.

It is simply a fact that every single law presupposes somebody’s view of morality.  Any law that says “X is wrong and the consequences are therefore Y” or “You must do X and the penalty for not doing X is Y” are invariably based on somebody’s view as to what is right and what is wrong.  You simply cannot avoid “legislating morality”; it is only a question as to whose morality ought to be legislated.

My friend believes that moral issues such as prostitution and narcotics offenses should not be crimes and should not be punished by the legal system.  He specifically said that people shouldn’t be put in federal prison for such non-violent crimes.  Why not?  After all, he says that he himself doesn’t believe in drugs and would never use a prostitute.  His answer: Because he doesn’t believe that it is right for him to hold other people accountable for his moral views.

Well, let me say a few things in addition to the aforementioned fact that EVERY law and for that matter every striking down of every law that has been on the books (e.g., “sodomy laws”) represent somebody’s morality.  The first emerges from Abraham Lincoln – and why he was the first Republican rather than the first libertarian.

In 1858, Democrat candidate for president Stephen Douglas, in arguing that slavery ought to be legal (more specifically, that slavery not be made ILLEGAL) assumed a view that the government could be completely neutral in regards to a moral issue like slavery (or abortion, or homosexuality, etc.) and allow each person the right to own a slave (or abort a baby or marry a same-sex partner) as he or she chose.  I’ve described the exchange Douglas had with Lincoln before:

Douglas said that, although he was “personally against” the institution of slavery, “popular sovereignty” ought to determine whether slavery was legal or not. Does that sound familiar? The state isn’t “for” slavery or “for” abortion or – in the case of prostitution – “for” prostitution; it ought to be completely “neutral” and allow people to decide for themselves. In their Sixth Debate at Quincy on October 13, 1858, Abraham Lincoln’s famous response to Douglas was:

“So I say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he “don’t care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,” whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don’t see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

The fact of the matter is that if government permitted blacks to be owned as slaves, it was not taking a neutral position. It was implicitly accepting the view that blacks were less than fully human, and therefore could be owned as property if someone chose to do so. And if the presuppositions justifying slavery were wrong, then as Lincoln said, one simply could not have “the right to do wrong” – even by popular vote. In the same way, by permitting unborn babies to be aborted, the government is not taking a neutral position. Rather, it is likewise implicitly accepting the view that the unborn are not fully human, and therefore can be regarded essentially as property rather than as persons (property that may be destroyed at will).

On issues such as abortion, or prostitution, or homosexual marriage, or narcotics crimes, I do not accept the argument that would be legislating my moral view and that doing so is somehow wrong for me to do.  That is because 1) the other side is equally legislating ITS moral view, and if the other side has a right to legislate its morality than I certainly have just as much right to legislate mine. 2) I further submit that in all of these issues, I am not merely legislating “my” morality; rather, I submit that God has made it plain that He is against these things the same way that I am, and I further submit that the entirety of Western civilization is similarly on my side on all of these issues. 3) there is no such thing as “neutrality” on a moral principle or issue.  You simply ultimately must take one position or the other.  When it comes to legalizing abortion, for example, the government cannot claim “neutrality” because they are affirming that ultimately abortion is permissible and it is not wrong for someone to have one.   And it therefore boils down to 4) as Lincoln argued: a person cannot have a right to do something that is wrong.

During our conversation, my friend brought up a fascinating point as supporting his view that we should not be legislating morality: he brought up Jesus and the example of the woman caught in the act of adultery.  Here’s the story (John 8:3-11 from the NIV):

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.  In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”  They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.  When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”  Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.  At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.  Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”  “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

I should point out that this story – as famous as it is – is NOT in the earliest manuscripts of the Book of John and was quite possibly not in John’s Gospel as he wrote it.  It is also not found in any of the other Gospels.  I could therefore simply dismiss this account as a later addition to the Gospel and at the very least argue that one shouldn’t make sweeping conclusions on the basis of a story that may not even have been part of Jesus’ teaching.  I’m not going to take that path in the rest of my interpretation of this passage and in fact believe the passage is an authentic event in the life of Jesus, but you should realize that option is available.

My friend cited this story in John’s Gospel to support his view that Jesus was essentially a libertarian here and abrogated the notion of the law punishing someone for moral issues like adultery.  And the implicit assumption is that what applies to adultery would likewise therefore apply to prostitution, homosexual marriage and narcotics crimes (i.e., to all the so-called “victimless crimes”).  Is he right?

Take a moment before reading on to think about how you would respond to this and upon what grounds you would so respond before reading on.

Let me point out a few things that need to be understood.

1) Jesus is not abrogating the Law of Moses here.  In a passage that was unquestionably the words of Jesus, we have this: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17).

Interestingly, on John’s (Johannine) theology, it was the pre-incarnate Christ who gave Moses the Ten Commandments to begin with.  John 1:1-3 famously teaches that Jesus as the Word was God the Creator.  It teaches that “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”  It was Christ who created the universe and created man in His image so that He could one day assume the image of man in the Incarnation.  And it was the pre-incarnate Christ who appeared to Moses in the burning bush.

It’s not like Christ as God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Creator, Yahweh the I Am, gave Moses the law and then later came to earth and decided that the stuff about punishing adultery was wrong.  There is a great deal more going on in this account of what Jesus did and why He did it.  And particularly, given that Jesus specifically taught that He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, one simply does not have warrant to assume that contrary to what Jesus said He actually DID come to abolish the law.

2) Part of that “great deal more” that is going on is overtly stated in the account itself:

 “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

This was hardly a mere matter of asking Jesus whether the Laws of Moses were valid or whether the specific Law of Moses pertaining to punishment of adultery was valid.  The pharisees dragged this woman before Jesus to trap him.  The woman was merely a pawn in their game.  Basically, they were seeking to put Jesus in an impossible dilemma: if Jesus said that the woman should be stoned, then Jesus would be guilty of demanding the death penalty which was reserved for Rome and therefore Jesus would be guilty of insurrection against Rome.  And don’t think the Pharisees would not have immediately raced to Pontius Pilate and made sure that Pilate was aware that a dangerous insurrectionist was walking around inciting Jews to commit violence.  And if Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, then Jesus would be guilty of abolishing the Word of God and the Law and teachings of Moses and therefore a blasphemer and a heretic.  Jesus had to answer the Pharisees in a manner which did not invite either of these two above interpretations.  If the woman actually had been stoned to death, she would have died not as a result of her adultery but for being a political tool in the effort to entrap Jesus.  That must be seen as the proper background for Jesus’ answer.

3) There is also something very wrong with this picture:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.

How many does it take to tango?  Doesn’t it take TWO people to commit adultery?  Where’s the man?  Why isn’t he there?  Just how was it that “this woman was caught in the act of adultery” but they didn’t catch her partner?

Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that I to this very day believe that people caught in the act of adultery should be stoned to death.  Does that therefore mean that I would or should agree that only the women should be stoned and the men should get off scott free?  Must I hold that stoning the women is better than not stoning anybody?  Because that’s the specific circumstance that Jesus was confronted with.

By this point in time, the Pharisees had actually long-since ceased following the “laws of Moses” and were instead following “a hedge around the law” of Moses in its place.  They had developed all sorts of laws in sources such as the Talmuds, the Mishnah and the Midrashim and had added levels upon levels and layers upon layers of laws to surround the law of Moses ostensibly to keep a person from breaking the law of Moses by making it such that he or she would have to first break a whole series of laws just to GET to the Law of Moses.

Jesus described these additional laws in Matthew 23:1-4 (NLT):

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses.  So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach.  They crush people with unbearable religious demands and never lift a finger to ease the burden.

Unfortunately, they had an uncanny way of providing loopholes for themselves.  The woman could and should be stoned to death for her crime of adultery, but the man who committed adultery with her and presumably informed the Pharisees of her crime was let off the hook.

And in condemning the woman to death, Jesus would have been providing His assent to this entire unjust system that had arisen around the Law of Moses in addition to being labeled as an  insurrectionist against Rome.

How was Jesus to render His judgment about a system which stoned a woman to death as an adulteress while the man who had committed the same act of adultery with her walked away whistling and able to do it again?

In answering the way that He did, Jesus on the one hand could not be called an insurrectionist against Rome; those who were about to stone the woman put their stones down because of his words.  On the other hand, He likewise could not be said to have abrogated the Law of Moses.  Because He didn’t tell them NOT to stone her; He merely called attention to the fact that those who were about to be executioners because this woman was a sinner were themselves sinners.  It was the perfect answer for the trap the Pharisees had set for Jesus; in fact it was the ONLY answer for the trap.

4) Jesus’ mission and ministry itself was also involved.

I’ve heard death penalty opponents ask the question, “Would Jesus sentence somebody to death?”  And of course, you’re supposed to read John 8:3-11 and conclude “Oh my gosh!  No, He wouldn’t have!  The death penalty is wrong!”  But let’s ask another question on the same view: “Would Jesus sentence somebody to life imprisonment?”  And of course, on the same view that you use above, the answer is, “No.  Jesus wouldn’t have done that, either.  He would have forgiven the criminal.”  On the view that is being taken of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, Jesus would have forgiven the criminal for his crime – regardless of what it was – and told him, “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

You end up with a category fallacy, as I shall explain. 

We run into two problems in understanding the John 8 passage as Jesus teaching that adultery – and all the other aforementioned moral issues and “victimless crimes” – should no longer be punished.  One is everything I’ve said above, and the other was speaking in John 8 as One who did not come in the Incarnation to judge and condemn people for their sins, but rather to deliver and save people from their sins.  That’s the category fallacy I was talking about.  It doesn’t mean that Jesus was saying that all laws be set aside.  He wasn’t teaching that we can or should do away with the Law of Moses, or that public moral crimes such as adultery and homosexuality and prostitution, etc. etc. be allowed to flourish without any punishments.  Rather, he was saying to those who were merely trying to set a trap for Him by dragging a woman before Him in order to get Him to commit insurrection against Rome that if her accusers were going to demand she be punished for her sins, then her accusers should be punished for theirs, as well.

One day, for the record, Jesus will return as King of kings and as Lord of lords.  And He will very MUCH come to judge and render judgment.  And yes, people WILL be held accountable to the moral law and they will be punished for their crimes against men and against God.

There’s an increasingly popular view that liberals and libertarians share: public moral issues such as homosexual marriage and prostitution and the narcotics industry don’t hurt them as individuals and therefore we should simply step aside and allow those who want to “fundamentally transform” America to have at it.  My response is twofold: number one, if your argument is “It’s not hurting me” and that’s all you care about, you’re not a patriot because you only care about yourself.  Your marriage won’t implode so you don’t care if homosexual marriage and prostitution and widespread narcotics use become the law of the land to go along with adultery and abortion.

Well, that was the exact same attitude that the Germans had as they watched the Nazis take the Jews away.  They weren’t Jews so it didn’t affect them and they didn’t care.  Martin Niemöller summed up the reality that “It doesn’t affect me” is a rather morally idiotic way to live.  This idea that “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care” is the essence of “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

The second thing is that these issues DO affect you.  Because they affect all of society all around you. 

George Washington said the following in his farewell address.  In his very last words to the nation, the father of our country issued us this warning:

“Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.”

Fellow founding father John Adams expressed a very similar warning this way:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We reject our religious tradition and degrade public morality at our peril.  I write about the constant liberal attempt to rip up the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution and take away our right to keep and bear arms and protect our homes and our properties from both private individual criminals and public sector bureaucrat tyrants alike.  They decry the violence they see around them, but will never realize that it was their “fundamental transformation of America” which they have pursued for the last sixty years that broke down our society and turned it into a violent place to begin with.  I write:

Liberals have worked hard for the last fifty years to take away our morality and our religion. In so doing, they have given us the very violence that is now spiralling out of control. Liberals are the kind of people who have taken away prayer. Liberals are the kind of people who have refused to allow the posting of the Ten Commandments because “If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” and God-as-Government forbid that children be allowed to do something like that. Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed godless abortion upon society to the tune of 54 MILLION innocent human beings butchered since 1973. Liberals are the kind of people who have destroyed fatherhood, because according to liberals fathers did not father children, but strictly non-human lumps of biological goop such that they should not be allowed to have any influence whatsoever as to whether their own babies be allowed to even live. Liberals are the kind of people who have imposed pornography on us because liberal justices are moral idiots who are morally incapable of differentiating between art and XXX-rated sex movies. Liberals are the kind of people who imposed no-fault divorce without limit or condition upon us because breaking up families is more important than asking couples who took a vow to one another under God to work to resolve their differences. Liberals are the kind of people who turned marriage itself into a perverted mockery by saying that the institution of marriage as the union of one man and one woman be adulterated to include whatever the hell politically correct understanding depraves the minds of the left next.

These are the people that George Washington said, “These people are NOT patriots.” These are the people that the founding fathers said we needed to be armed to protect ourselves against as they take away the God-given rights of “the people” to protect ourselves against the very tyranny they continually seek to impose upon us.

Abortion has been the death of fatherhood.  When a man and a woman have sexual relations, does a man father a child?  No!  Not on the liberal abortion view!  No child was born; only a lifeless inanimate lump of goo arose.  That man is NOT a father and should have NONE of the rights of a father.  And therefore if he wants his child, he is compelled to stand aside and do nothing while his child is murdered at the “choice” of his child’s mother with absolutely ZERO say in the subject.

In the black community you’ve got two out of every three babies conceived being murdered in their mothers’ wombs.  What ought to be the safest place in the world for a baby is the most dangerous place.  And you wonder why 71% of all black children are raised without fathers?  Those “non-father fathers” are merely living according to the Democrat/liberal reality that fathers do not matter and that they should have no choice and no rights as fathers.  They didn’t “father” anything and they have no rights and no “choice” even if they think they DID “father” something; so they should therefore have no responsibility and there’s the door right over there.

You say, “It doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.”  But your poor kid or grand kid has to go to school and then walk home from school surrounded by increasingly psychotic little thugs who never had fathers to teach them right from wrong and discipline them when they chose the latter over the former.  More and more boys are growing up having no idea what it means to be a “man” apart from what their mothers who have become embittered against men tell them.  With the clear result being that boys are growing up to be far worse than the “non-father fathers” who abandoned them.  Morally intelligent people are watching their society become more toxic by the day all around them.  And they damn well know that this decay is hurting them.

Meanwhile the number of workers who support each retiree continues to plummet every single year. Seventeen workers contributed to every retiree’s benefits when the Social Security program began. Now it’s down to 2.3. By 2035 it will be down to 2-1. Meanwhile we have murdered more than 54.5 million future workers since 1973. Any fool ought to know that the trend isn’t good. And yet we keep piling on more and more and more idiocy because “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.” One day we’re going to wake up to find ourselves in a collapsing banana republic and then we’ll wish we’d cared.

Don’t tell me it doesn’t affect you.  Because I’ll know from that moment that I’m talking to a moral idiot.

The same applies to prostitution.  Do you really think that’s a ‘victimless crime’?  You don’t think the wives and the fiances and the girlfriends of men who use prostitutes aren’t hurt by this public moral depravity?  You don’t think the children of these men aren’t hurt by it?  You don’t think that the women who prostitute themselves aren’t victimized by an action in which they literally sell their bodies to be used like sex dolls?  You don’t think that life hurts their children and hurts their family members?  You don’t think that when women prostitute themselves it in fact hurts ALL women as men develop an increasingly widespread attitude that women are merely objects to be used and discarded when you’re finished using them?  You don’t think that ANY location where prostitutes gather to further poison society doesn’t become a toxic cesspool that won’t lose its value, thus directly hurting that community?  Yes, prostitution hurts society.  Prostitution hurts society at every single level.

Let me cite an article that was in the Los Angeles Times on a different subject that creates the same sort of problems for a community: the different subject was panhandling.  Liberal cities like Arcata – known as “the Berkley of the North” – has tried to ban the panhandlers they once encouraged to flood into their city.  In addition to the trash, the drug needles, the human feces all over, these “tolerant” liberals discovered that they were killing their city’s businesses as shoppers increasingly avoided areas where they would get repeatedly and aggressively hit up for money.  You don’t think prostitution doesn’t create an even BIGGER drag on businesses?  You don’t think that prostitution – which brings in gangs and pimps and turf wars along with many other things that make decent people avoid those areas like it had the plague – doesn’t do the same things to the unfortunate businesses that find themselves next to a hell hole?  You don’t think that as businesses fail, jobs leave the area, tax dollars leave the area, the area itself suffers decline and blight, and people aren’t HURT?

You cannot have a right to do wrong, Lincoln said.  What kind of person would actually say, “There’s nothing wrong with prostitution, and I hope my little girl sells herself for hundreds of anonymous men to sexually use her?”  What kind of people would encourage their wives or their mothers to become prostitutes?  If you think that prostitution is a good thing that will help civilization flourish, if you truly believe that women are the sort of dumb farm animals who won’t mind if their men use women for money that rightfully belongs to their households and to their children, then you are a particular kind of sick idiot.  But please have the basic decency NOT to say that while you personally believe it’s wrong and you would never do it yourself that people ought to have the “right” to do this obviously very wrong thing.  The wisdom of Lincoln refutes you right along with the results of the fruits of your attitude on society.

Marriage is under direct attack from so many different liberal policies it is beyond unreal.  Defining marriage as a mere societal convention that has no divine value or transcendent significance, such that it can be redefined according to whatever is the politically correct attitude that happens to be in vogue, is hardly the way to support the institution of marriage.  If marriage means everything, than marriage means absolutely nothing.  It is either a union of one man and one woman under the sight of God or it isn’t.  People are increasingly asking, “Why should we bother to get married?”  Because marriage means less and less, and there is less and less stigma for those who simply don’t bother to marry because there is no longer any value in marriage.  And therefore there is less and less permanence and stability and more and more fracturing of more and more families.

Liberals want to say race is the leading indicator as to poverty.  They are WRONG.  The leading indicator of poverty is single parent households.  There is absolutely no question that regardless of your race or any other factor, that marriage is the place where children thrive and abandoning marriage results in abandoning children to impoverished lives. 

Let us return again to adultery.  What should we do?  Re-legislate the Law of Moses and stone them?  That would be something, wouldn’t it?  Imagine how many despicable people wouldn’t be around to plague society any longer?  That being said, obviously we’re not going to stone adulterers any time soon whether it’s a good thing to do or not.

Tragically, it is very difficult to put the immoral cat back in the bag and embrace public morality once that love of and pursuit of national public morality has been lost.  Once a nation begins to decline, it is very difficult to turn the ship around.  Degenerating from bad to worse to collapse is the pattern that we have observed over and over and over again.

The first thing that we can do as we realize the enormous hole we have dug ourselves in is for the love of God to STOP DIGGING.  Quit attacking marriage, the family, religion, religious values and morality while assuring the people that doing so will do no harm.  Quit saying “it doesn’t affect me so I don’t care.”

The second thing to do is to try to undergird marriage and fight as a society to keep families together.  No-fault divorce and easy convenient divorce have got to go.  And of course, there is no point fighting to preserve marriages and keep couples together unless “marriage” means something that is truly worth fighting for to begin with.

The third thing to do is to find a way to punish public immorality and make acts of public immorality shameful the way it used to be.  We don’t have to resort in jails or even in a return to the stocks.  There are more ways than ever today to publicly shame those who engage in shameful behaviors to go with community service and fines.  But of course, here’s the conundrum: no perpetrator of a shameful act will never truly feel shame if the people that become aware of his or her shameful act are not offended and outraged by the behavior.  The more immorality there is that comes to characterize society at large, the more apathy there will be, and vice versa.  The more tolerant we are as a society toward adultery and divorce, the less stigma there is to commit adultery and to have divorces, the more adultery and divorce you’re going to see.

There was a time when a person possessing common sense could consider the consequences of having an adulterous affair and conclude that the consequences were simply not worth the “rewards” of the act.  As there are fewer and fewer consequences, we have inevitably seen an increase in the number of Americans who have said, “the hell with it.”

And that’s precisely why we’re going to hell.

No one is more victimized by these things than children.  Children of these tragedies perform more poorly academically, have less social competence, have worse health, and have far more behavioral problems than children of mothers and fathers (note: NOT homosexual couples!).  And of course these dysfunctional, scarred children grow up, and the vicious cycle spirals more and more out of control.

Is there a way out?  There is, but America won’t take it.

Which is why the beast is coming.  We’re living in the last days and the devil is panting with eagerness to introduce his Antichrist to the world that will be looking for a messiah of its own choosing after our depraved world collapses under the weight of its wickedness.

‘What About The Baby’s Choice?’ A Pro-Life Woman Asks As She’s Being Assaulted By A Pro-Choice Thug

December 19, 2009

First of all, may God bless this courageous and beautiful woman as she stands up for the cause of innocent human life.

Pro-Life Activist Lila Rose Attacked by Planned Parenthood Abortion Center Escort

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 18
, 2009

San Jose, CA (LifeNews.com) — Lila Rose has made a name for herself exposing the abuses at Planned Parenthood centers, such as staffers misleading women about abortion or hiding cases of sexual abuse. Rose became a victim herself Thursday morning as a Planned Parenthood staff member attacked her.

Late Thursday morning at the Planned Parenthood abortion facility located at 1691 The Alameda in San Jose, California, Rose led a group of pro-life advocates.

Rose tells LifeNews.com she was visiting the abortion center with a group of about 20 students and three adults to pray and provide information to women who might be open to abortion alternatives.

According to a police report filed at the scene and numerous witnesses, a uniformed Planned Parenthood escort engaged in a short exchange with Rose and eventually struck her on the hand, knocking her literature to the ground.

“Sir, are you familiar with the abortion procedure?” Rose asked the Planned Parenthood escort while standing on the public sidewalk.

The escort approached Rose from the Planned Parenthood parking lot and said, “You idiot. You’ve caused so much trouble. You piece of crap.”

Rose told LifeNews.com today: “The man appeared to recognize me though I had never met him. He knew who I was and I think that is part of the reason for his surprising anger and the attack.”

Rose offered to show the escort a picture of a baby victimized by abortion, saying, “Can I show you a picture of what it really does to a baby?”

At this point, the escort struck Rose’s hand knocking her pro-life pamphlets and Bible to the ground and Rose stepped further back on the public sidewalk.

The Planned Parenthood official moved closer to Rose and, visibly shaking, says, “It’s a woman’s choice!”

“What about the baby’s choice?” Rose responds.

The Planned Parenthood escort replied, “It’s not a baby!” and then turned around and walked away.

Rose, the president of Live Action, tells LifeNews.com that the police were called and interviewed her and several witnesses on the scene.

She says she was not injured by the attack but will press for charges of assault and battery.

“I attempted to speak with the escort and faced unexpected, intense anger and violent physical contact,” Rose told LifeNews.com. “I was concerned at the time that he would attack somebody more violently, and more do so next time.”

“Live Action maintains a strong commitment to non-violent public discourse. We expect Planned Parenthood will respond to their escort’s attack by publicly disavowing the use of violence,” Rose said.

However, Planned Parenthood has yet to comment on the incident.

Rose told LifeNews.com she’s not concerned about the attack in one sense because unborn children face worse.

“The attack against me cannot even begin to compare with the lethal attacks that take place twice a week at that same clinic against completely defenseless unborn children. I am thankful I live in a nation where my life is protected by law, and the lives of sidewalk counselors, and we will continue to fight for the day when our laws recognize our fellow unborn brothers and sisters as persons with the right to life,” she said.

Rose said she received good news this morning.

“A woman who thought she was pregnant and considering abortion, bound for Planned Parenthood , turned around, and one of the parents and their daughter at the clinic drove her and her friend to the criis pregnancy center,” she said.

‘She was crying and so happy because she said she wanted ‘a sign from God’ not to get an abortion. And the sidewalk counselors and students praying were her sign,” Rose concluded.

Related web sites:
Live Action – http://liveaction.org

Again, bless you, Lila Rose.  I thank God for you, and for what you are doing, and – now that I know who you are and what you are about – I will not forget to pray for your ministry and for your protection.

Let me ask one pertinent question.  If “It’s not a baby,” as Planned Parenthood says, then why is it that men are called “fathers” and held legally responsible to provide support for “the children they fathered”?

If it was not a child immediately following his part in procreation, then upon what legal or moral basis can a man be held responsible as a “father”?  After all, he didn’t father a “baby”; he merely fertilized a single-celled lump of goo.  It didn’t “become” a baby until considerably after the fact – according to the abortionist reasoning – either after the baby was born, or after the mother decided to “choose” that it was a baby and therefore somehow wasn’t a lump of goo.

If a baby doesn’t actually become a baby until he or she is born, then on what possible basis do you hold the “father” responsible for something that happens 9 months after he had anything to do with anything?  The only thing he cause was a non-human lump of goo, not a baby, right?

If your going to hold him responsible for the fact that a baby is born 9 months later as a result of something he had done 9 months previous, how can you not apply the same logic to the mother, and recognize that in 9 months time she will have a baby, so that she become responsible for that outcome of a baby in the same way a father is held responsible?

If a baby doesn’t become a baby until the “mother” decides that little boy or girl in her womb is a baby, then that’s her “choice” alone – and nobody but the woman who made that choice should be held accountable for it.  Period.  If she has all the “rights,” she should bear all the responsibilities for her “choice.”

The simple fact of the matter is that justice is dead.  A baby is expected to forfeit his or her very life for the mere convenience and “choice” of a mother.  And a father is expected to sit passively by while his own child is killed by being violently ripped apart after being dissolved – writhing in agony – by acid.  Ah, unless the mother subjectively “chooses” that her baby really is a baby; in which case the father is compelled to provide support for that baby whether he wants to “choose” to do so or not.

You can understand why modern fathers are decried for being passive and uninvolved today.  It is the legacy of abortion, which tells fathers that neither they nor their children have any real value.  Given the twisted moral logic of abortion – which has permeated our culture – why should they care?  The baby that he fathered is intrinsically without value apart from the completely subjective “choice” of the woman he once had sexual relations with.  Why should he be any more involved with his “child” now than he was forced to be when all “choice” as a parent was taken away from him by our legal system in the first place?

There is a famous photo of a baby reaching out of the womb and grasping the finger of the surgeon (Dr. Joseph Bruner) who was in the midst of operating to alleviate the effects of spina bifida in that child.

The photo reflects something that is so profoundly human that it brings tears to my eyes every time I see it.  This is the kind of creature that any human mother and father should do absolutely everything in their power to save and protect.  To casually kill such an innocent little human being – that now lives because of a union of mother and father – is beyond monstrous.

Here’s a more recent photo of that same child – Samuel Armas – ten years later, proudly holding up his awards for swimming.

Of his role in “The Hand of Hope,” Samuel says, “When I see that picture, the first thing I think of is how special and lucky I am to have God use me that way.”

Amen, my young brother.  You are as incommensurably priceless now as you were the day you famously reached out of your mother’s womb.

Now, since I am one who actually knows that that an innocent little baby in the womb is a developing human being conceived in the image of God, I know that every father becomes a father from the moment he conceives a child.  And therefore every father has a moral duty under God and under heaven to love, support, and protect his child – from the very sort of murderers who would rip his child apart in abortion.  And I know that just as I also know that any mother who murders her own baby deserves hell for her crime.

And anyone who nods their assent to this monstrosity likewise deserves hell for advancing the cause of the greatest moral evil the world has ever seen.  Fifty million human beings are dead in this country alone because of the systematic holocaust of abortion.  People think that just because it’s legal, it must be okay.  But Hitler’s death camps, Stalin’s purges, and Mao’s cultural revolution, were all perfectly legal in their day, too.

You might recoil back and say, “How dare you invoke the Nazis!”  But there is a crystal clear link between Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and the Nazi ideology.  And not very long ago, Planned Parenthood was caught in the act embracing the same racist and uber-Darwinian mentality as their founder once shared with Hitler.

The Nazis had a slogan – Arbeit macht frei, meaning “work shall make you free,” which they posted above the gates of many of their death camps.  Human beings were forced to worked until starvation and disease made them unable to continue working, and then they were euthanized in gas chambers, all because they were not deemed to have intrinsic value as human beings.  Abortion and euthanasia were at the heart of Nazi ideology – to help along Darwinian selection and improve their “master race” by preventing or terminating “unfit” human beings – under a doctrine that they called lebensunwertes leben, or “life unworthy of life.”

In America, we have done something that is virtually as chilling from a different philosophy called “choice.”  We demand “rights” that impose duties and burdens upon others – culminating in a baby’s duty to die for the sake of the “rights” of the mother.  American abortion clinics should post their own, even more menacing phrase: tod macht frei, or “death shall make you free.”  In America, the choice to abort is the choice to kill in the name of convenience and consumerism.  Abortion clinics are modernized drive-through death camps.  Walk in through the gate with a growing baby in your womb; walk out with your own child’s blood on your hands.

What’s Wrong With Barack Obama’s Abortion Position?

August 17, 2008

Barack Obama answered two questions about abortion last night at the Civil Forum at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church: “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” and “Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?”

Let me begin with his answer to the second question: “Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?

I AM IN FAVOR, FOR EXAMPLE, OF LIMITS ON LATE TERM ABORTIONS IF THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR THE MOTHER’S HEALTH. NOW FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THOSE WHO, YOU KNOW, ARE PRO LIFE, I THINK THEY WOULD CONSIDER THAT INADEQUATE. AND I RESPECT THEIR VIEWS. I MEAN ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I’VE ALWAYS SAID IS THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION, THEN — AND YOU ARE CONSISTENT IN THAT BELIEF, THEN I CAN’T ARGUE WITH YOU ON THAT BECAUSE THAT IS A CORE ISSUE OF FAITH FOR YOU. WHAT I CAN DO IS SAY ARE THERE WAYS THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES SO THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE REDUCING THE SENSE THAT WOMEN ARE SEEKING OUT ABORTIONS, AND AS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I’VE TALKED ABOUT IS HOW DO WE PROVIDE THE RESOURCES THAT ALLOW WOMEN TO MAKE THE CHOICE TO KEEP A CHILD. YOU KNOW, HAVE WE GIVEN THEM THE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY NEED. HAVE WE GIVEN THEM THE SUPPORT SERVICES THAT THEY NEED. HAVE WE GIVEN THEM THE OPTIONS OF ADOPTION THAT ARE NECESSARY. THAT I THINK CAN MAKE A GENUINE DIFFERENCE.

Barack Obama has good reason for understanding that anyone who cares about life would find his position on abortion inadequate.

First of all, Barack Obama displays a shocking degree of deviousness, disingenuousness, and deceitfulness in his answer. To begin with, he actually opposed legislation that would have mandated that babies who had been born alive following induced labor for an abortion be provided with medical treatment. This not only sinks below the depravity of late term abortion, it sinks below even partial birth abortion to the realm of actual infanticide. Even the ultra-abortion rights group NARAL wasn’t willing to endorse such a radical extremist (and frankly vile) position.

Barack Obama has been rated as supporting abortion “100%” by NARAL (perhaps they should have increased his rating to 150% given his Illinois Senate career). In 2006, he voted against parental notification for minor girls having abortions. And in 2007 he voted in support of partial birth abortion. When he says he is in favor of any limits on abortion whatsoever, his own record says he is lying.

Secondly, Obama is deceitful in the broad sense as well as in the specific sense. Obama says that he is in favor “of limits on late term abortions if there is an exception for the mother’s health.” What he lacks the honesty and integrity to reveal is that his “criteria” for “the mother’s health” is so broad that virtually ANY exception would qualify (a headache, for example). And therefore in actual practice he is FOR late term abortions.

But Obama then says that whether one is pro-life or pro-abortion, both sides can work together to “reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions.” This amounts to the argument that abortion is a fundamental right, but we should work to make it as rare as possible.

But why should we do so, given the logic that it is a fundamental right? Name another fundamental right that should be made as rare as possible. Should free speech be “safe, legal, and rare?” Should we do everything possible to reach across the party divides so that the right to peaceably assemble occur as rarely as possible? How about freedom of religion? Maybe that should be actively discouraged? Or the right of a free press? Maybe there should be as little free reporting as we can possibly have?

Do you see the fundamental irrationality here? If abortion really is a good thing, then we should be pursuing more of it. And the abortion rights organizations believe exactly that, continually working to increase the right to and access of abortion in as many circumstances as they can have. But at the same time this war for total abortion freedom is going on, disengenuous politicians are out there taking an ostensibly common sense position of making rare what abortion proponents are actually trying to make more common.

Abortions should only be reduced if it is wrong.

Given the history of how deceitful Barack Obama has been in his own personal legislative career, and how disingenuous he is about presenting his views, let us turn to the other question: “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?

WELL, I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OR A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY, YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. BUT LET ME JUST SPEAK MORE GENERALLY ABOUT THE ISSUE OF ABORTION BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY THE COUNTRY WRESTLES WITH. ONE THING THAT I’M ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED OF IS THERE IS A MORAL AND ETHICAL CONTENT TO THIS ISSUE. SO I THINK THAT ANYBODY WHO TRIES TO DENY THE MORAL DIFFICULTIES AND GRAVITY OF THE ABORTION ISSUE I THINK IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION. SO THAT WOULD BE POINT NUMBER ONE. BUT POINT NUMBER TWO, I AM PRO-CHOICE. I BELIEVE IN ROE V. WADE AND COME TO THAT CONCLUSION NOT BECAUSE I’M PRO ABORTION, BUT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY I DON’T THINK WOMEN MAKE THESE DECISIONS CASUALLY. THEY WRESTLE WITH THESE THINGS IN PROFOUND WAYS. IN CONSULTATION WITH THEIR PASTORS OR SPOUSES OR THEIR DOCTORS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. AND SO FOR ME, THE GOAL RIGHT NOW SHOULD BE — AND THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE CAN FIND COMMON GROUND AND BY THE WAY I HAVE NOW INSERTED THIS INTO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM IS HOW DO WE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT ALTHOUGH WE’VE HAD A PRESIDENT WHO IS OPPOSED TO ABORTIONS OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, ABORTIONS HAVE
NOT GONE DOWN.

Obama’s answer essentially is, “We don’t know for sure when life begins, so we should opt for death.”

Let me give an example: Suppose you are in the shower, with shampoo in your eyes, when your five year old says, “Momma, can I kill this?” What do you say? Do you seriously reason, “Well, I don’t know what the ontological status of the thing my little Johnny is talking about is, so I should allow him to make his own decision.” Johnny might be talking about his two-year old brother!

By Obama’s own reasoning, he just may be supporting and even advocating the murder of innocent human beings. The bottom line is, if there is any doubt at all about the status of the unborn, why not opt for the side of life?

The view that the government should be or even can be morally neutral in such a circumstance is simply false. African-Americans ought to be particularly sensitive about this line of reasoning. Allow me to cite an answer by Abraham Lincoln in refuting the view expressed by Stephen Douglas. It is historically fitting that Democrat Stephen Douglas ran for president as the U.S. Senator from Illinois. Douglas said that, although he was personally against the institution of slavery, “popular sovereignty” ought to determine whether slavery was legal or not. In their Sixth Debate at Quincy on October 13, 1858, Lincoln’s famous response to Douglas was:

“So I say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says he “don’t care whether slavery is voted up or voted down,” whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don’t see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

The fact of the matter is that if government permitted blacks to be owned as slaves, it was not taking a neutral position. It was implicitly accepting the view that blacks were less than fully human, and therefore could be owned as property. And if the presuppositions justifying slavery were wrong, then as Lincoln said, one simply could not have “the right to do wrong” – even by popular vote. In the same way, by permitting unborn babies to be aborted, the government is not taking a neutral position. Rather, it is likewise implicitly accepting the view that the unborn are not fully human, and therefore can be regarded essentially as property rather than as persons (property that may be destroyed at will).

There is something else that should be realized: that the right of a woman to choose abortion logically and morally entails the position that fathers do not and should not matter. Abortion trivializes the role of the father.

If the “thing” that is created by intercourse is not in fact a human being and a human person, then why should he be held accountable for what develops 9 months later? It is out of his control by the implicit reasoning of abortion: the woman alone decides. Only if he fathered a child with all the recognition and human dignity of a human being should he be held accountable for fathering a child! If the “right to choose” is up to a woman and a woman alone, then what does the man have to do with it?

Fathers are put in a despicable position by abortion logic: if a woman decides to abort her baby, then the father – by abortion morality – must stand idly by while his own child is put to death, and even approve of the killing. If, on the other hand, the woman decides to keep her baby, then a father is held to the duty of supporting that child until that child reaches legal adulthood whether he wants to have a child or not. Where is his “right to choose”? Where is his “reproductive freedom”? The father is completely left out of the decision as an insignificant component. Is there any wonder that fathers have essentially abandoned their role of fatherhood?

My final point is this: When Obama – responding to the question of what has been America’s greatest moral failure – answered:

I THINK AMERICA’S GREATEST MORAL FAILURE IN MY LIFETIME HAS BEEN THAT WE STILL DON’T ABIDE BY THAT BASIC PRECEPT IN MATTHEW THAT WHATEVER YOU DO FOR THE LEAST OF MY BROTHERS, YOU DO FOR ME. AND NOTION OF — THAT BASIC PRINCIPLE APPLIES TO POVERTY. IT APPLIES TO RACISM AND SEXISM. IT APPLIES TO, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING — NOT THINKING ABOUT PROVIDING LADDERS OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO GET INTO THE MIDDLE CLASS. I MEAN, THERE IS A PERVASIVE SENSE I THINK THAT THIS COUNTRY IS WEALTHY AND POWERFUL AS WE STILL DON’T SPEND ENOUGH TIME THINKING ABOUT THE LEAST OF THESE —

I could not help but shout, “UNBORN BABIES! UNBORN BABIES” after Obama said, “the least of my brothers.” And as he unpacked this sacred principle taught by Jesus as applying to racism and sexism and providing ladders I kept shouting, “ABORTION! ABORTION!”

The fact is that it is the denial of human dignity to our precious babies in the womb is our greatest moral failure. It is a moral failure that has resulted in the abortions of 40 million human beings since the passage of Roe v. Wade.

John McCain, when asked the same question – “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” – had the simple answer: “At the moment of conception.”

Abortion Destroys More Than Just A Baby

April 1, 2008

Abortion is a cancer that makes our society sick on every level. It destroys us individually – one baby at a time; it erodes the essential institution of fatherhood by removing fathers from the most basic decision regarding their children; and, ultimately, it creates unstable consequences that damage our nation and our world. And rather than being a necessary industry that protects the weakest and neediest among us, it is in fact a holocaust among the very groups of people we claim to be trying to save.

First of all, abortion clearly results in the death of a child. Do the math: if your beloved mommy had decided to have an abortion during her pregnancy with you, you would not have been born. More specifically, you would have died. Mommy would have killed you. The same you who was once a teen ager, once a toddler, once an infant, was also once a fetus, once an embryo, and once a zygote. Killing you at any point during that continuum would have rendered you every bit as dead. If you don’t believe me, look at your brother or sister; a different egg and sperm produce a totally different child every time. Even in the case of identical twins – where a zygote divides – we end up with two different children. Abortion destroys a child.

But when the Supreme Court looked down from Mount Olympus and divined in the Constitution a woman’s right to choose abortion, it did something else: it destroyed the rights of fathers, and undermined the traditional family structure.

Think about it: if a mother exercises her “right to choose” abortion, it presupposes a duty upon the father of that child to idly sit by while his child is killed. While mommy beams down at her little bundle of joy and says, “I could have chosen to kill you, but let you live because I wanted a baby, daddy is outside somewhere saying, “Well, mommy didn’t decide to kill it, so I guess I’m a father. How can anyone who claims to have an IQ above that of the baby that abortion kills not see how radically abortion undermines the role of the father?

Conversely, if daddy dearest is a “pro-choicer” who doesn’t want anything to do with his child and would very much like to choose death for it, he may well be subjectively compelled by the courts to pay child support. A woman can kill her child at will during pregnancy. That is her right. But if she subjectively decides to keep her baby, the courts impose the burden on a father to support that child whether he wants it or not. That is his duty. Where’s daddy’s “right to choose”? He has no rights at all, only duties selectively imposed upon him by the granting of this bizarre woman’s right. So much for equal rights; so much for equal protection under the law. If daddy desperately wants his child and mommy wants to abort, too bad, so sad, dad. If daddy doesn’t want to be responsible for his kid but mommy wants to keep it, to bad, so sad, dad. Abortion is not only murder, it is also patently unfair by any meaningful standard.

In their infinite wisdom, the courts decided that fatherhood amounted to nothing more than donating sperm and writing checks. A woman kills her child and is regarded as making a choice with all the moral consequence of choosing whether to buy a particular blouse. A father walks away from a liftime commitment of supporting that same kid that momma could have had chopped into little pieces and he becomes a “deadbeat dad.” And the same courts that made all this possible – after creating the chaotic disaster of “no-fault divorce” – have also nearly unanimously decided that fathers shouldn’t get custody of their kids. They’re lucky if they get joint custody! Being a father means being pretty low on the totem poll. And of course, in recent years, we have lesbians actually taking advantage of the latest science to bypass daddy altogether. So much for dads.

Incredibly, the same secular humanists who utterly failed to see the consequences of their utter contempt for fathers have for going on forty years continued to fail to see the clear cause-effect relationship between abortion and the declining participation by fathers. But suprise, suprise. Fathers by the millions recognized and internalized the utter meaninglessness that society clearly impugned upon them and simply walked away. Duties without rights, plus criticism without recognition, is no way to attract men to embrace fatherhood. And, for that matter, rights without duties is no way to attract women to embrace motherhood.

The statistics are overwhelming and inexorable. Abortion. Fatherlessness. Out of wedlock births. Single parent households. Crime. Drugs. Gangs. Prison. Chronic dysfunction. Studies galore support the death of the family with the rise of a sociopathic youth culture. In many major cities, 65% of babies are born to unmarried women. Nationally, 70% of the long-term inmates in prisons who have committed the most violent crimes grew up without fathers. INTERPOL statistics have likewise revealed that single parenthood ratios were strongly correlated with violent crimes. Studies of juvenile offenders have shown that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Children born out of wedlock are three times more likely to drop out of school than children in two parent households, and they are far more likely to end up on welfare. And study after study has demonstrated that children without fathers are far more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs, far more likely to be sexually, physically, and emotionally abused, far more likely to become obese, and far more likely to perpetuate the vicious cycle by having out of wedlock children themselves. And there is no connective link – NONE! – that more determines poverty than single parenthood.

You want to turn this tide around? Criminalize abortion. The problem isn’t too many children being born; the problem is fatherlessness! Stop the insane double standard. If fathers should have any duty whatsoever to support their children, surely mothers have at the very least the duty to allow their children to live! Hey, guess what? This isn’t a meaningless fetus; it is a precious, valuable human being, and BOTH mother and father have a duty to care for their child. Dad, you brought this little mouth into the world, and you have an obligation to provide for your baby; mom, you conceived this little bundle of joy, and you have an obligation to nurture your baby. But only a fool decrees that mother gets to decide whether a child should count enough to live, and that a father must somehow be duty-bound to completely respect and honor whatever her choice is. That is insane, and it is evil.

If we as a society begin to respect life enough that we begin to recognize that it is worth nurturing, worth, providing for, worth loving, and worth sacrificing for, then we will finally begin to see a turnaround in our society. Decades of terrible statistics will begin to improve as the society that demands that fathers recognize their children itself fundamentally recognizes children.

Abortion by its very design and by its very nature removes fathers from the equation of life. It is time to bring them back.

When fatherhood is trivialized, ignored, and removed as a factor by abortion, chaos follows. That’s what all the trends tell us. And that chaos has had a terribly detrimental impact upon society. The liberals who decry the United States’ involvement in the five-year old Iraq war may well have a point in noting the trillion-dollar debt that the war will cost American society; but they will not for a single nanosecond consider the multi-, multi-, multi-, multi-trillion dollar cost of abortion upon our society as it triggered massive fundamental philosophical and sociological degredations of human life. It is frankly incredible that so many supposedly intelligent people failed to see that the stupid logic that you are human only if you are wanted would not have massive unintended consequences.

And we will increasingly see the result of the international aspect of abortion as well. A June 13, 2007 news story (Infanticide, Abortion Responsible for 60 Million Girls Missing in Asia) begins as follows:

There is a little-known battle for survival going in some parts of the world. Those at risk are baby girls, and the casualties are in the millions each year. The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion and female infanticide — the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born.

According to a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report, these practices, combined with neglect, have resulted in at least 60 million “missing” girls in Asia, creating gender imbalances and other serious problems that experts say will have far reaching consequences for years to come.

“Twenty-five million men in China currently can’t find brides because there is a shortage of women,” said Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute in Washington, D.C. “The young men emigrate overseas to find brides.”

The imbalances are also giving rise to a commercial sex trade; the 2005 report states that up to 800,000 people being trafficked across borders each year, and as many as 80 percent are women and girls, most of whom are exploited.

“Women are trafficked from North Korea, Burma and Vietnam and sold into sexual slavery or to the highest bidder,” Mosher said.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281722,00.html

Here we have a clearly established link between abortion and sex selection, as well as clear correspondence between abortion and sex slavery as well as a link between abortion and an unstable and unsustainable societal dilemma in a nuclear state. What will be the long-term psychological state of an already rogue nation as hundreds of millions of men begin to come onto the scene who cannot possibly marry or ever enjoy a normal relationship with a woman?

I still recall Senator Hillar Clinton going to a women’s conference in China and lecturing the Chinese on abortion. In her view, although it is perfectly legitimate for American women to abort their progeny out of whatever subjective preference that entered their minds, as long as it is a woman’s “choice.” However, it is immoral for a nation-state to attempt – out of what they perceived as a direct threat to their national survival (i.e. a one child per family edict to control overpopulation) – to control the number of children born. This view is particualarly hypocritical coming from a liberal Democrat who generally favors big government bureaucratic solutions over individual free market ones. If her reasoning process wasn’t already twisted enough, she then proceeded to undermine her whole “abortion is wonderful as long as women choose to do it” by lecturing the Chinese on sex selective abortions, which are done not only in China but in much of the developing world out of long-standing cultural practices that value sons over daughters. In Senator Clinton’s reasoning, abortion is fine as long as it is a woman’s choice, as long as she doesn’t choose to abort her girls.

Sex selective abortions routinely take place throughout Asia, and is also a rampant practice in India and much of Latin America. In a bizarre but talionic twist, “a woman’s right to choose” has resulted in a literal holocaust against women.

And it is not only women who fall prey to the abortion mills. While so many liberals who claim to champion civil rights laud abortion, the fact remains that abortion has cut a terrible swath among black Americans. There is a clear prima facia case to be made that abortion seems to selectively favor the weakest, the poorest, and the most vulnerable members of society. If liberals had a functioning moral compass, they would be troubled by the ramifications of their ideologies. They don’t, and they aren’t.

Last month UCLA students had an actor call Planned Parenthood development centers in seven states asking whether his donation could be specifically targeted to “lower the number of black people.” Each branch agreed to process the racially earmarked donation. None expressed concern about the clearly expressed racist motives for the donation, and some staffers explicitly agreed with the racist reasoning. Planned Parenthood issued a statement that attempted to redirect attention from its profoundly racist staffers. We should likewise forget that 79% of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities are in minority neighborhoods, or that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a prodoundly racist proponent of eugenics. From its inception, Planned Parenthood has readily agreed with the statement, “the less black kids out there, the better,” which was uttered by the UCLA actor in his recorded conversation with Planned Parenthood’s Autumn Kersey. She called his position “understandable,” and indicated her excitement to process the donation. He was acting; the Director of Development at the Idaho Planned Parenthood office was not.

The Rev. Johnny Hunter has bemoaned the plight of black Americans, who are killing themselves off at an incredible rate, and has pointed out that abortion has killed far more blacks than the Klu Klux Klan. Dr. Alveda King, the niece of the famed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has used the same analogy, saying, “The great irony is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.” She quoted her uncle as having said, “It’s time that we remember the sacrifices of men like my father and my uncle who worked and died so that our children could live.” And she said, “It’s time to stop killing the future and keep their dream alive.”

The numbers are simply staggering. Dr. Alveda King says that a full one quarter of the black population is missing from the abortion genocide. “15 million black people have been denied their most basic civil right, the right to life,” she says. Out of 42 million total abortions in the United States, 15 million (35.7%) have been black. Black women are three times more likely than white women to have an abortion, and a nearly half of all black pregnancies are ending in abortion!

If conservatives championed a campaign that would inevitably come to result in the termination of women and blacks in massive numbers, one can only imagine the rhetoric of disgust and righteous outrage that would flood the media ink and airwaves. But the central plank of both liberalism and the Democratic Party has clearly done exactly that, and there is nothing but stony silence.

And may I point out (again) that abortion – which removes fathers from the equation and thus trivializes fatherhood – has anhiliated black fatherhood every bit as much as it has anhiliated their babies. When we look at the shocking statistics regarding black crime, drug use, incarceration, and dysfunction on virtually every level we need to realize that abortion is not the cure, but the disease.

Finally, let me discuss the relationship of abortion with the impending Social Security meltdown. By 2017, Social Security be greater than what it takes in (the definition of bankruptcy, by the way), and the trust fund will be completely emptied by 2041.

In 1950, there were 16 workers for every recipient of Social Security. Today there are only three workers for every recipient. And given current trends, within a few decades there will only be two. There are obviously other factors to account both for this trend and for the overall problems with Social Security in general, but no problem is greater than the fact that we have killed off more than 42 million potential workers since the 1970s. Grandpa’s generation did not exterminate themselves, you see (and all the wars from the Revolutionary War to the war in Iraq haven’t begun to kill off Americans the way abortion has!), and so there are a lot of people to support, and way too few to support them.

Medicare is in even worse shape. By 2014, payroll tax revenue will cover just over half of Medicare’s budget, and the program’s trust fund – which pays for critical medicare care – will be exhausted by 2019. Something dramatic will have to be done to save the program, and liberals’ promises to pump more government money into health care amount to what one of my professors – commenting on students who wrote lengthy answers to exam questions that somehow never arrived at an answer – called “pumping sunshine.” By the time the bickering parties and entrenched interest groups get around to seriously trying to turn around this Titanic, it will be too late to cut benefits, and workers will revolt on a level not seen since the early 1930s if they are called upon to pay the taxes necessary to keep the entitlement programs alive.

My fear is that the younger generation and the government bureaucrats will apply the same twisted reasoning as the thinking that brought us the abortion mills that caused so much of this growing disaster in the first place. If you can kill a baby before it has a chance to be born and become potential burdens upon society, why not kill the elderly before they have a chance to become guaranteed burdens on society? Watch out, grandpa! Because the generation that survived abortion will almost surely come after you!

Liberals despise the Bible, so let me end by quoting it. Proverbs 8:32-26, urging readers to pursue godly wisdom, says, “And now, o sons, listen to me: blessed are those who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the Lord, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.”

Abortion is the love of death, and the pursuit of death over the pursuit of life. And the end of a culture that loves death is death.

Toward Genuinely Overcoming Racism in America

March 21, 2008

I begin by pointing out that I am white (well, caucasian, anyway: my skin is actually a fair shade darker than ‘white’). To many, this fact alone disqualifies me from talking about racism. In fact, quite a few would say that my being white is sufficient to condemn me as being responsible for racism. I frankly have little to say to this group, because it is impossible to have rational debate with irrational people. But to those who are susceptible to reason, I would offer that my ancestors on both sides of my family tree fought in the Civil War on the side of ending slavery, and in fact even made the ultimate sacrifice for that cause. Why doesn’t this count? Why doesn’t it count that so many other [white] Americans’ ancestors similarly championed the right side of freedom and equality?

As is now well known, Barack Obama’s pastor – the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. – has been repeatedly quoted as having made despicable statements about “white America,” even going as far as pronouncing America with three Ks in a transparent effort to characterize the United States as the United States of the Klu Klux Klan.

Some – such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich – have said that Jeremiah Wright’s statements shouldn’t be characterized as being particularly racist, given that just about any committed member of the left (regardless of skin color) basically agrees with the sentiment that America is a terrible place with a racist and immoral past. That doesn’t excuse Wright, and it certainly shouldn’t make Americans feel any better that an even larger number of Americans than we might think hate and despise their countries’ past. But the central problem with Wright’s view is not racism per se, but rather that if you hate and demonize America’s past, then in what meaningful sense can you say you love America? You’re essentially saying we need to overthrow histoic, traditional America and replace it with something entirely different. But how would that different thing still be America?

Wright has gone all the way back to our founding fathers and our most cherished traditions and applied the label “racist” to the whole lot. Remember, Barack and Michelle Obama’s pastor is the one who said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!… [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.” When Wright gets through cutting away all of what he views as the racist and immoral parts of America, what would be left over? Is it any wonder that a man who so profoundly despised America and everything it has stood for would come to embrace liberation theology, which is Marxist (and fundamentally anti-American) to its very core?

The revelation of Wright’s views certainly helps us trace the origin of Michelle Obama’s views that she is proud of her country for the first time in her adult life, and that “America in 2008 is a mean place.” We now can understand that her attitude was substantially influenced by her pastor. Is it beyond the pale of reason that the same ideology that clearly seems to have influenced her thinking similarly might have influenced her husband’s? Barack Obama gave a beautiful speech yesterday, but he didn’t even attempt to answer why he chose to keep going to such a church, under such a pastor, for year after year after year.

In flat out disagreement with Jeremiah Wright, I would argue that from its very outset, America was founded by good people with great ideals. And also from its very outset, America has been a country that has had its share of not-so-good people who have frequently undermined and perverted many of those ideals. On the balance, the United States of America has been a beautiful face marred with some blemishes. So called “white America” needs to confront the blemishes; but so called “black America” surely needs to look at the face and begin to appreciate its beauty.

And I think – ultimately – that loving one’s country is rather like loving one’s spouse. It is only when you love despite the imperfections and blemishes, love in spite of past hurts and wrongs, that you truly love. It is easier for some to love the United States of America than it is for others; but I think that they who know her flaws and still love her passionately love her more deeply than the those who don’t.

But even as “white America” examines America’s blemishes, and asks itself why the nation founded on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution somehow managed to tolerate slavery for another century, and why the greatest and freest nation in the history of the world has continued to struggle with inequality to this very day, “black America” needs to examine itself as well. If we refuse to look critically into a mirror, it is as impossible to see our own imperfections as it is easy to notice the imperfections of everyone else. Let me now mention some blemishes that “black America” desperately needs to work to resolve.

It is fairly well known that black men are incarcerated at a significantly higher rate than whites, Asians, or Hispanics. It is also fairly well known that black apologists commonly cite “racial profiling” as the reason for such high rates of incarceration; it is not that young black men are either so unable to control themselves, or are so morally depraved that they have become predators, it is rather that the police are always looking for them and therefore finding them. It is an almost impossible argument for society to refute, because it amounts to proving a negative (i.e. Prove to us you didn’t do it).

But the incarceration rate of black men does not stand by itself. There are a lot of other facts to consider, which, when taken into account, actually do refute the “racial profiling” polemic. Recently, the Center for Disease Control released data pertaining to teenage girls having sexually transmitted diseases. This new study (April 2008) reveals that 50% of black teens have STDs, as opposed to only 20% of whites. Was this the result of some kind of “profiling”? Obviously not. Rather, a significant sample of whites, blacks, bispanics, and asians were tested, and the percentages emerged from the test results. Likewise, a 2005 study also finds that nearly 70% of black births are “out of wedlock,” as opposed to the still tragically high numbers of 25% of white births. Now, it is fair to ask: did black single girls and women become pregnant because they were “profiled”? Again, no.

We commonly see the diversity agenda in media and academia emerge in its shameless flogging of racial “disparities” in such areas as education, law enforcement, public health, business ownership and even mortgage interest rates. There’s almost always a clearly-stated assumption of “institutional bias” or racism against blacks. But what we don’t see is the numbers in these categories being balanced with the statistics relating to crime, out of wedlock births, and STDs. But when we look at the entire picture, a very different story emerges than the one we are commonly told.

Black children are more than twice as likely to live in poverty than are white
children–but not because they are “born black in America,” according to a new
study from The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA). Examining
data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Longitudinal Survey of Youth,
Heritage analysts determined that child poverty rates are driven primarily by
single-parent households and dependency on welfare benefits. When these and
other, less significant, factors are taken into account, the disparity between
black and white child poverty rates disappears. “Race alone does not directly
increase or decrease the probability that a child will be poor,” says Robert
Rector, Heritage’s senior research fellow in welfare and family issues and a
co-author of the report. The study notes that 68.8 percent of black American
children were born out of wedlock in 1999, compared to 26.7 percent of white
children. And black children were five times more likely to be dependent on Aid
for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the government’s largest welfare
program. Black children also live in poverty longer than whites-46.9 percent of
their time since birth vs. 26.7 percent for whites. Yet when black children and
white children are grouped by levels of single parenthood and welfare dependence
the poverty rates for both groups are nearly identical, Rector found. The
analysis also found that nearly half (44.5 percent) of all children born to
never-married mothers depend on AFDC, compared to a fifth (20.4 percent) of
those born out of wedlock, whose mothers later married. Only a tenth (10.7
percent) of the children born to married couples who subsequently divorce end up
relying on AFDC, as do a mere 2.5 percent of those whose parents’ marriages
remain intact. The press release can be read below, and the entire paper,
“Understanding Differences in Black and White Child Poverty Rates,” is available
online at http://www.heritage.org/library/cda/cda01-04.html.
Cited in a posting from Smart Marriages Listserv on May 29, 2001. (source: http://www.divorcereform.org/pov.htm).

So what we see is a crystal-clear connection between family status and poverty. The institution of marriage, and the presence of a father in the house, is the ultimate determiner of poverty, not race. And I find it more than passing interesting that “Black children are more than twice as likely to live in poverty than are white children,” given that more than twice as many out of wedlock births occur in the black community than in the white community, and that more than twice as many black teenage girls have STDs than white teenage girls. Do you see how the former would be expected to result from the latter?

Every time an individual or a societal or government institution makes mention of facts such as these, they are immediately set upon as racist. I vividly remember Bill Cosby making some of these observations and being labeled an “Uncle Tom.” And I similarly remember hearing Rev. Jeremiah Wright shout out the names of “Clarence, Colin, and Condoleezza!” to defame Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman and Secretary of State Colin Powell, and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as white collaborators. I believe that no one has served “black America” more terribly than the perversion of the civil rights movement and the current leadership of that community. The day when a man would be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character has been replaced with a shrill demand for race quotas. And there has been a refusal to examine the real issues that have had the most severe impact on the black community, and one vicious attack after another on anyone – regardless of skin color – who has attempted to address the issue squarely and legitimately. There can be no improvement when one refuses to look at the actual problem.

The ugliest blemish on the beautiful face of America was the institution of slavery. One of the most terrible outcomes that occurred as a result of slavery – at least according to some sociologists and cultural anthropologists – was the conception of something called the “vicious cycle.” As a matter of simple history, the American institution of slavery routinely resulted in the breaking up of black families. Fathers and mothers were separated from their children by being sold to new owners individually rather than as families. And black men and women were bred like animals to produce more slaves. The vicious cycle theory holds – accurately, I believe – that several generations of this practice created a dynamic that has been incredibly difficult to overcome. And had this dynamic been perpetuated against ANY racial group, the vicious cycle would be born out in that group for generations to follow.

what I’m trying to say here is that one does not need to “blame the victim” to recognize the obvious increasing breakdown of the black family in America. Rather, Americans black and white can come together and acknowledge that a despicable institution – slavery – created a long-term disaster that has yet to heal. And Americans – black and white – need to be allowed to come together and focus on the healing of the black family. If whites continue to be labeled as “racist” every time they try to come to the table and express their views, there will be no coming together.

The problem is – as I see it – that the moment we begin to focus on “family values,” liberals tend to become extremely fidgety. They do not want the focus to be on practices such as guilt-free sexual expression, the diminishing of the role of the father, rampant divorce on demand, teenage pregnancy, and out-of-wedlock births, because they have championed all of these things for the past 40 years. Rather, they want to focus on discrimination, race quotas, glass ceilings, and the like. But the figures I’ve provided clearly demonstrate that the former dwarfs the latter as the real cause of racial inequality. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wanted blacks to be judged by the content of their character, but nothing shapes and strengthens the content of one’s character more than a solid family structure!

Does it seem completely unreasonable to claim that if a baby is born to a poor, uneducated single mother on welfare, that that child will grow up twice as likely to be poor? Does it seem completely unreasonable to claim that such a child is far more likely to turn to drugs, gangs, and crime than a child born into a married family with a father? Why can’t we try to resolve these problems?

In 19th century England there were slums that shocked the senses. Filthiness, criminality, prostitution, drunkenness, sloth, and every other imaginable vice had come to completely characterize entire sections of cities. William Booth – the man who founded the Salvation Army – came into these places and preached not only salvation, but individual responsibility. He told the inhabitants of these slums that no one would help them because no one even viewed them as human in their current condition, but that if they began to clean up their streets and start to take control of their own lives, that others would see their efforts and begin to provide the economic assistance that they needed. And history proves that William Booth was exactly right. It wasn’t that the wealthier class didn’t want to help people in the slums; rather it was that they had never seen these people begin to act responsibly and demonstrate that assistance would change anything. But when residents of the slums began to clean up their streets, willing help came from all directions. This ought to stand as a template for any social movement.

Similarly, it isn’t that whites don’t want to put racism behind them, help blacks, or recognize that it is in their legitimate interest to do everything they can to reach out to fellow Americans. Martin Luther King, Jr. was successful because he led his people to stand up for themselves in a positive manner and begin to take individual responsibility. He literally shamed whites who had held blacks as being somehow inferior into changing their attitudes. Over in India Ghandi accomplished a similar success. Clearly, it can be done. It is only a matter of choosing the right approach and framing the discussion in a way that does not begin by attempting to frame any subsequent discussion in terms of bitterness and blame. But that is exactly what has been done, over and over again.

What is racism? I would define it simply as holding negative views about a person or group of people on account of race. And it can’t be a despicable thing when whites hold racist views against blacks, but permissible when blacks hold racist views against whites. And any justification for such a double standard – such as the frankly self-serving notion that black racism isn’t racism because blacks aren’t the group in power – will do nothing but create bitterness and anger and continue the division. It’s not that whites don’t want white people who make despicable comments to be held accountable; it’s that they expect blacks to hold themselves to the same standard that they demand whites adhere to. If “black America” really wants “white America” to overcome its incipient racism, then they must work toward doing the same. It’s as simple as that.

Does anyone seriously doubt for a moment that, were it discovered that Senator John McCain had attended a racist white church for twenty years, that Democrats en masse would be screaming for his resignation, much less the end to his presidential campaign? And Senator Barack Obama in the past couple years called for Senator Trent Lott’s resignation for his comments honoring 100 year old retiring Senator Strom Thurmond, just as he called for Don Imus’ firing over his line against the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Bad as their words were, can anyone say that they descended to a lower level than blaming white America for a genocidal campaign to murder blacks with the AIDS virus? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made numerous racially charged comments against whites and Jews in their pasts, but they to be allowed to serve as the judge and jury of selective black outrage. Frankly, anyone who believes that continuing the politics of the dual-standard will lead to racial healing is a fool.

“White America” and “black America” need to arrive at a consensus on how to – in the words of our founders – “form a more perfect union.” And I would recommend we begin by focusing on issues in which both sides can come to common agreement. If “black America” demands that conservative whites either support a socialist-liberal redistributionist program or be labeled as racist, then nothing will happen except the continuation of the historic division and bitterness. Conservatives don’t believe in welfare as a general principle; they don’t want white people to live on welfare either. But if “black America” decides to truly begin to come to grips with the problem of the broken family structure in America, then “white America” – and particularly religious whites – will rally to their cause in huge numbers. Religious whites yearn to see a healthy black family structure; for that matter, they yearn to see a return to a healthy white family structure.

All sides in the racial divide need to understand that we are all in this nation – and the dilemmas we face as a nation – together. That “Why don’t you just go back to Africa!” line is pointless and hurtful; no one is going anywhere. We are all Americans. And Americans of every skin pigmentation need to come together in common cause and work – and do I mean WORK – to resolve and overcome differences and begin to make progress toward a better and stronger United States of America by focusing on common causes and common agreement.

Any naysaying aside, I do have a right to express my voice in the discussion toward racial harmony in America. My ancestors secured that right for me with their sacrifice and their blood.