Fearfully And Wonderfully Made: From Conception To Birth

“For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Your works are wonderful,
I know that full well” — Psalm 139:13-14

Does human life begin as worthless “byproducts of conception”?  Does human life only have value if someone is working and producing? (watch out, liberals!  Because most of the Democrat base would be exterminated on a ‘yes’ response!).  Or is human life of incommensurably precious value?

Please watch this six minute Youtube video.  I strongly suggest you turn down the volume level!

If your life began as something that is so valueless that your own mother can destroy you like a disease while the defied State smiles down benevolently, then why do you think that your life has any value whatsoever now?

You were once an embryo.  And if your mother had aborted you, you would have died.

My life has value not because of what I have done, but because of what I am: because I am a human being.  My human dignity is not utilitarian; it is ontological.  Which is why Jews, people on welfare and senior citizens shouldn’t be marched off to the gas chamber.  Nor am I any more “human” today than I ever was as an embryo, as an infant, as a teenager.  When I was in my mother’s womb, I was “human” by virtue of my parents, and a “being” by virtue of the fact that I was a living thing.  Now and from the moment of conception, I am and have been a human being.

Here is a 21-week old “product of conception” reaching out of his womb during surgery to grasp the finger of his surgeon:

Today, that “product of conception” is 11-years old and goes by the name Samuel Armas:

Had Samuel’s mother chosen to abort him rather than choosing surgery to cure his spina bifida in utero, Samuel would have died.  He never would have had a chance to live and play and win medals for swimming:

Here’s another “product of conception” who actually survived an abortion.  This one-time aborted fetus is now 33 years old and calls herself Gianna Jessen:

Gianna wouldn’t be here today if her murder-attempt-by-abortion had succeeded.  She would have been killed by her own mother.  As it turned out, forgiveness of what was done to her is part of her beautiful human spirit.

Don’t be “pro-choice.”  Hitler was pro-choice.  Only Hitler didn’t wipe out nearly as many human beings as the fifty-two million innocent babies annihilated by the abortion movement in America.

Celebrate life.  Cherish life.  Celebrate and cherish the dignity of the human spirit.  Stand with me against the culture of death otherwise known as abortion.

Leftist Thought Led To Fascism – And Is Doing So Again

Liberals think that the title of Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron.  They’re wrong.  Goldberg himself writes:

“For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right.  And yet with the notable and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee of Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger.  All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment–John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke–and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism.  Meanwhile, the ranks of the leftwing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition.  And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents.  The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values–even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments” [page 175].

“Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  All fed into a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstructionism, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all these ideas had the same purpose–to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancient regime still fought and persevered.  These were ideologies of the “movement.”  The late Richard Rorty admitted as much, conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project” [Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, page 176].

It turns out that most of the moral and philosophical assumptions of liberalism have been shared by not only the Marxists, but the Nazis as well.  NAZI stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and was merely a rival brand of the clearly leftist political ideology of socialism.  And given the fact that Marxism was in fact every bit as totalitarian and murderous as Nazism, in hindsight it seems rather bizarre that “Marxist” was ever an abracadabra word that the American left was willing to bear to begin with.

The purpose of this article is to explore how the foundational ideas that liberals uphold as being the opposite of fascism in fact actually fed the monster of fascist Nazism, and how the modern American left continue to fall prey to fascist premises and outcomes to this very day.

It is particularly interesting that the supposedly highly individualistic and influential school of thought known as “existentialism” became so ensnared by fascism and Nazism.  On the surface, existentialism would seem to be the very polar opposite of fascism and Nazism.  After all, a philosophy of radical freedom centered in the individual would surely be incompatible with a totalitarian social system that denies political liberty in the name of the community.  One would assume that existentialism would be a philosophy of rebellion against all such external authority.  And yet the Nazis quoted Frederich Nietzsche at great length in support of their ideology (see also here).  Martin Heidegger, one of the foremost existentialist thinkers in history, turned out to have been a proud member of the Nazi Party.  And even famed existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre – who fought to resist fascism in his Nazi-occupied France during WWII – ultimately merely chose another totalitarian ideology in its place (Sartre identified himself as a Marxist and a Maoist).

Georg Lukács observed (in The Destruction of Reason, 1954, page 5) that tracing a path to Hitler involved the name of nearly every major German philosopher since Hegel: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthy, Simmel, Scheler, Heidegger, Jaspers, Weber.  Rather than merely being amoral monsters, the Nazis emerged out of a distinguished liberal secular humanist intellectual tradition.

Max Weinreich documented in Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People, an exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime.  Far from opposing the Nazi regime, we find that German academia actively provided the intellectual justification for Nazi fascism as well as the conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  Weinreich does not claim that German scholars intended the Holocaust, but he argues that the Holocaust would not have been possible without them.

He asks, “Did they administer the poison?  By no means; they only wrote the prescription.”

How could such a thing happen?

Very easily, it turns out.

The existentialists (along with the secular humanists and the liberals), deny the transcendent, deny objective truth, and deny the objective morality that derive from transcendence and objective truth.  Rather than any preordained system – whether moral or theological – existentialist anchored meaning not to any ideals or abstractions, but in the individual’s personal existence.  Life has no ultimate meaning; meaning is personal; and human beings must therefore create their own meaning for themselves.

One should already begin to see the problem: since existentialism, by its very nature, refuses to give objective answers to moral or ideological questions, a particular existentialist might choose to follow either a democrat or totalitarian ideology – and it frankly doesn’t matter which.  All that matters is that the choice be a genuine choice.

Existentialists didn’t merely acknowledge this abandonment of transcendent morality, they positively reveled in it.  In his book St. Genet, Jean-Paul Sartre celebrated the life of a criminal.  Genet was a robber, a drug dealer, and a sexual deviant.  By all conventional moral standards, Genet was an evil man.  But for Sartre, even ostensibly evil actions could be moral if they were performed in “good faith.”  And since Sartre’s Genet consciously chose to do what he did, and took responsibility for his choices and his actions, he was a saint in existentialist terms.

And the problem becomes even worse: by rejecting the concepts of transcendence, objective meaning, truth, and moral law, and by investing ultimate authority in the human will (i.e. Nietzsche’s “will to power”, Hitler’s “triumph of the will”), existentialism played directly into the hands of fascism — which preached the SAME doctrines.  If fascism can be defined as “violent and practical resistance against the process of transcendence,” as Ernst Nolte defined it, then it’s affinities with existentialism are crystal clear.  The two movements became part of the same stream of thought.

Modern Nietzsche followers argue that Nietzsche was not a racial anti-Semite.  For the sake of argument maybe he wasn’t; but he was without any question an intellectual anti-Semite, who attacked the Jews for their ideas and their ethics — particularly as they contributed to Western civilization and to Christianity (which he also actively despised).  And in addition to Nietzsche’s intellectual anti-Semitism was his utter contempt for any form of abstractions — particularly as they related to the transcendental categories of morality and reason.  Nietzsche maintained that abstraction of life resulted from abstraction of thought.  And he blamed Christianity – which he rightly blamed as a creation of the Jews – for the denial of life manifested in Christian morality.

And, unlike most pseudo-intellectuals of today, Nietzsche was consistent: in his attack against Christianity, he attacked Judeo-Christian morality.  He attacked the Christian value of other-centered love, and argued that notions of compassion and mercy favored the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Don’t you dare think for a single nanosecond that Hitler didn’t take the arguments of this beloved-by-liberals philosopher and run down the field with them toward the death camps.

The Nazis aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against the the Judeo-Christian God and the Judeo-Christian morality the Jews represented.  A transcendent lawgiving God, who reveals His moral law on real tablets of stone for mankind to follow, was anathema to the fascists.  They argued that such transcendence alienates human beings from nature and from themselves (i.e., from their own genuine choices).  The fascist intellectuals sought to forge a new spirituality of immanence, focused upon nature, on human emotions, and on the community.  The fascists sought to restore the ancient pre-Christian consciousness, the ancient mythic sensibility in the form of the land and the blood, in which individuals experience unity with nature, with each other, and with their own deepest impulses.

Gene Edward Veith in his book Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian worldview writes:

The fascist rebellion against transcendence restored the ancient pagan consciousness.  With it came barbarism, a barbarism armed with modern technology and intellectual sophistication.  The liquidation of the transcendent moral law and “Jewish” conscience allowed the resurgence of the most primitive and destructive emotions, the unleashing of original sin (page 14).

Nietzsche argued that God is dead, and Hitler tried to finish Him off by eradicating the Jews.  What is less known is that he also planned to solve the “church problem” after the war.  Hitler himself  said:

“The war is going to be over.  The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem.  It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” [From Hitler’s Tabletalk (December 1941), quoted in The Nazi Years: A Documentary History, ed. Joachim Remak, 1990, page 105].

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion.  It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”  And Himmler said, “Men who can’t divest themselves of manners of previous centuries, and scoff and sling mud at things which are ‘holy’ and matters of belief to others, once and for all do not belong in the SS.”

With the creed “God is dead” and the resulting “death of God,” Nietzsche predicted that energizing conflict and revolution would reemerge in a great wave of nihilism.  Human beings would continue to evolve, he said, nodding to Darwinism.  And man would ultimately give way to Superman.  And Nietzsche said that this Superman would not accept the anachronistic abstract, transcendental meanings imposed by disembodied Judeo-Christian rationalism or by a life-denying religion.  Rather, this Superman would CREATE meaning for himself and for the world as a whole.

The Superman, according to Nietzsche, would be an artist who could shape the human race – no longer bound by putrefying and stultifying and stupefying transcendence – to his will.  “Man is for him an un-form, a material, an ugly stone that needs a sculptor,” he wrote.  Such a statement did not merely anticipate the Darwinist-based Nazi eugenics movement.  It demonstrated how the exaltation of the human will could and would lead not to general liberty, as one might have expected, but to the control of the many by the elite — with those of the weaker in will being subjugated to the will of the Supermen.

Nietzsche’s new ethic became the rationale for all the Nazi atrocities that would follow.  As Nietzsche himself put it, “The weak and the failures shall perish: the first principle of OUR love of man.  And they shall even be given every possible assistance.  What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and the weak: Christianity” (in “The Anti-Christ” in Portable Nietzsche, p. 570).  We see here also the exemplification of yet another legacy left behind by Nietzsche that was picked up by the Nazi and afterward by secular humanist atheists today: the Nietzschean attitude of flippant, sarcastic contempt for all the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity.

One of the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity was the fundamental sanctity of human life.  But the Nazis had their own concept – Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”).  And nearly fifty million of the most innocent and helpless human beings have perished as a result of an existentialist philosophy that survived the fall of the Nazis in liberal thought, which celebrates pro-existentialist “pro-choice” above human life.

Nietzsche’s philosophy underlies the thought of all the later existentialists, and the darker implications of his thought proved impossible to ignore.

And Martin Heidegger, in his own personal choice to commit himself to National Socialism, did not ignore them.

There is more that needs to be understood.

Martin Heidegger invoked Nietzsche in his 1933 Rectoral Address, in his speech entitled, “The Self-Assertion of the German University,” in which he articulated his commitment to the integration of academia with National Socialism.  He began by asking, if Nietzsche is correct in saying that God is dead, what are the implications for knowledge?

As Heidegger explained, if God is dead, there is no longer a transcendent authority or reference point for objective truth.  Whereas classical thought, exemplified by the Greeks, could confidently search for objective truth, today, after the death of God, truth becomes intrinsically “hidden and uncertain.”  Today the process of questioning is “no longer a preliminary step that is surmounted on the way to the answer and thus to knowing; rather, questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing.”

Heidegger’s conclusion became accepted to the point of becoming a commonplace of contemporary liberal thought: that knowledge is a matter of process, not content.  With the death of God, there is no longer any set of absolutes or abstract ideals by which existence must be ordered.  Such “essentialism” is an illusion; and knowledge in the sense of objective, absolute truth must be challenged.  The scholar is not one who knows or searches for some absolute truth, but the one who questions everything that pretends to be true.

Again, one would think that such a skeptical methodology would be highly incompatible with fascism, with its practice of subjecting people to an absolute human authority.  And yet this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of fascism.  In fact, Heidegger’s Rectoral Address was warmly endorsed by the National Socialists for a very good reason: the fascists saw themselves as iconoclasts, interrogating the old order and boldly challenging all transcendent absolutes.

We find that in this same address in which Heidegger asserts that “questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing,” Heidegger went on to advocate expelling academic freedom from the university:

“To give oneself the law is the highest freedom.  The much-lauded ‘academic freedom’ will be expelled from the university.”

Heidegger argued that the traditional canons of academic freedom were not genuine but only negative, encouraging “lack of concern” and “arbitrariness.”  Scholars must become unified with each other and devote themselves to service.  In doing so, he stated, “the concept of the freedom of German students is now brought back to it’s truth.”

Now, the claim that freedom would somehow emerge when academic freedom is eliminated might be sophistry of the worst kind, but it is not mere rhetorical doublespeak.  Why?  Because Heidegger was speaking existentially, calling not for blind obedience, but for a genuine commitment of the will.  Freedom was preserved because “to give oneself the law” was a voluntary, freely chosen commitment.  Academic freedom as the disinterested pursuit of truth shows “arbitrariness,” parking of the old essentialist view that truth is objective and transcendent.  The essentialist scholar is detached and disengaged, showing “lack of concern,” missing the sense in which truth is ultimately personal, a matter of the will, demanding personal responsibility and choice.  In the new order, the scholar will be fully engaged in service to the community.  Academic freedom is alienating, a function of the old commitment to moral and intellectual absolutes.

And what this meant in practice could be seen in the Bavarian Minister of Culture’s directive to professors in Munich, that they were no longer to determine whether something “is true, but whether it is in keeping with the direction of the National Socialist revolution” (Hans Schemm, quoted in Hermann Glaser, The Cultural Roots of National Socialism, tr. Ernest A. Menze, 1978, p. 99).

I point all of the above out to now say that it is happening all over again, by intellectuals who unknowingly share most of the same tenets that made the horror possible the last time.

We live in a time and in a country in which the all-too modern left has virtually purged the university of conservatives and conservative thought.  This is simply a fact that is routinely confirmed.  And as a mater of routine, conservative speakers need not apply at universities.  If they are actually invited to speak, they are frequently shouted down by a relative few liberal activists.  And leftwing censorship is commonplace.  Free speech is largely gone, in a process that simply quashes unwanted views.  We have a process today in which a professor who is himself employing fascist tactics calls a student “a fascist bastard.”  And why did he do so?  Because the student gave a speech in a speech class choosing a side on a topic that the professor did not like.

We live in a society in which too many of our judges have despised a system of objective laws from an objective Constitution and have imposed their own will upon both.  Judicial activist judges have largely driven transcendent religion and the transcendent God who gives objective moral laws out of the public sphere.

Today, we live in a society that will not post the Ten Commandments – the epitome of transcendent divinely-ordained moral law – in public schools.  And why not?  Because judges ruled that:

“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,” which, the Court said, is “not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

One can only marvel that such justices so cynically debauched the thought of the founding fathers whose ideas they professed to be upholding.

Justices of the Supreme Court agreed with this fallacious ruling even as the figure of Moses holding the Ten Commandments rules atop the very building in which they betrayed our nation’s founding principles.

And thus the left has stripped the United States of America bare of transcendent moral law, just as their intellectual forebears did prior to WWII in Nazi Germany.   And thus the intellectual left has largely stripped the United States of America from free debate within academia largely by pursuing the same line of reasoning that Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger employed to do the same in Nazi Germany.  We saw this very feature evidenced by leftist scientists who threw aside their scientific ethics in order to purge climatologists who came to a different conclusion.

The climate that led to fascism and to Nazism in Germany did not occur overnight, even though the final plunge may have appeared to be such to an uninformed observer.  It occurred over a period of a half a dozen decades or so, with the transcendent and objective moral foundations having been systematically torn away.  And after that degree of cancer had been reached, it only took the right leader or the right event to plunge the world into madness.

Will Mainstream Media Attack Left Over Murder Of Pro-Life Activist?

“Pro-Choice Terrorist Murders Pro-Life Activist.”

That would be a genuinely incredible headline to see on CNN, MSNBC, or, heck, even Fox News, wouldn’t it?

Not going to happen.  It would mean that the mainstream media actually had the capacity for balance – and it doesn’t.

A Factiva search for mainstream media articles on the murder of Jim Pouillon returned a total of 19 hits; by contrast, the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller turned up 643 hits.  That’s “balance” for you.  The mainline media’s project is to tarnish the right with intolerance, hate, and murder.  And they simply aren’t willing to entertain any facts that conflict with their chosen narrative.

The fact that the murder occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 makes the “terrorist” angle even more obvious – but the mainstream media will avoid that angle like Superman avoids kryptonite.

We’re told of the murderer: “Mr. Drake did not believe children should view the graphic material on the signs Mr. Pouillon carried.”  But it was a “crime of hate, not a hate crime.”  What a ridiculous rationalization!  They’re trying to say that the murderer wasn’t ideological about abortion, but simply quibbled over Pouillon’s sign.

Jim Pouillon was murdered because he was a pro-life protester.  Pure and simple.  To his credit (in pointing out the obvious), even Barack Obama – who had a 100% lifetime NARAL support record – recognizes the fact.  The mainstream media, which fell all over itself to condemn the “climate of hate” of the right and the pro-life movement, refuses to turn its lens on the left and the pro-abortion movement.

We have known for years that the mainstream media have been ideological supporters of the pro-abortion movement, and ideological opponents of the pro-life movement.  And the dishonest mainstream media is revealing how corrupt they are yet again as they virtually ignore the murder of a pro-life activist, and utterly refuse to see the murder as an act of leftwing hate.

A prominent pro-life activist was shot repeatedly and murdered outside of a high school, and the media that came absolutely unglued over “rightwing extremists,” ” intolerance,” “hate,” “domestic terrorism,” etc. etc. etc. will very likely not even mention it.  They just don’t have the integrity.  And they certainly will not use the “leftwing” pejoratives to denounce the murder of a pro-life activist the same way they denounced the “rightwing” for the murder of abortionist Dr. George Tiller.

Anti-abortion activist shot in front of Owosso High School
by Elizabeth Shaw | Flint Journal
Friday September 11, 2009

OWOSSO, Michigan — State police at the Corunna post have confirmed a well-known anti-abortion activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School.

The victim’s identity has not yet been released but the shooting occurred around 7:30 a.m., after most students were off the buses and safely inside the building, said Owosso schools transportation supervisor Jayne Campbell.

State police also confirmed that a suspect was taken into custody about 8:15 a.m. at the suspect’s home.

Owosso High School secretary Wendy Smith said the students remain in lockdown this morning and confirmed that no students were involved and all are safe with classes going on as normal. The shooting did not occur on school property, Smith said.

Meanwhile, police have completely ringed with police tape a section of North Street in front of the school.

A black car can be seen parked at the corner of North and Whitehaven streets, where a portable oxygen tank is lying in a front yard next to a large sign bearing the image of a baby and the word “Life.”

Again, the victim has since been revealed to be James Pullion.

Here is a link to MSNBC’s senior cockroach Keith Olbermann loudly demonizing conservatives, Bill O’Reilly, the pro-life movement, rightwing extremists, hate speech, and whatever else the demons whispered in his ear for him to repeat.  And he was hardly alone in the hatefest.

Mind you, even the media’s presentation of this activist is typical of the left: one who favors the killing of babies in the womb is “pro-choice,” standing for something.  But one who stands up for life is depicted as being “anti.”  It would be nice if the media that likes the term “anti abortion” would choose a similar term such as “anti life” to describe what they invariably call the “pro choice” movement.

We’re seeing it depicted in the health care debate.  Liberals are “pro,” and conservatives are “anti.”  The fact of the matter is I’m actually “pro” a lot of things regarding health care.  I’m “pro” for tort reform, for ending mandates and allowing competition among the 1300 private insurers, for dealing with the problems caused by illegal immigration relating to health care, for keeping government socialism from taking over more of the system than it already has, and a lot of other things.  And liberals are “anti” a lot of things, aren’t they?  But it’s more rhetorically effective for the mainline media to describe me as a “health care opponent” belonging to “the party of no.”

One lone nutjob shot Dr. Tiller, and Keith Olbermann made an entire movement responsible for the act.  What do you want to bet this dishonest purveyor of propaganda at a dishonest network will somehow find the murder of a well-known pro-life activist as nothing to become concerned about?

Every single mainstream media, every single liberal blogger, everyone period, that used the murder of Dr. Tiller to attack the right will now either similarly demonize themselves for their “leftwing terrorist murderer,” or else stand forever condemned of hypocrisy, demagoguery, and propaganda.

Let me provide as an example the partial-birth-loving abortionist who is replacing Dr. Tiller – Dr. Leroy Carhart:

Dr. Carhart calls the murderer of his beloved colleague a “terrorist” saying his friend’s death is  “a declaration of war” on the part of radical anti-abortion activists whom he calls “fundamentalist terrorists . . . no different from al-Qaida, the Taliban or any of them.”

Is this guy going to have the intellectual and moral decency to demonize radical pro-abortion activists as a bunch of “fundamentalist terrorists… no different from al-Qaida,” et al, or is he going to be the hypocritical, dishonest ideologue slimebag that I fully expect him to be?

Obviously, that amounts to a rhetorical question, doesn’t it?

Well, allow me to provide a newsflash.  It is not “the left’s” fault that this pro-life activist was murdered.  It was the fault of one deranged man.

The left was despicable beyond the pale for not recognizing that fact when Dr. Tiller was murdered.

I suppose that is one of the big things that differentiates the right from the left.  For the left, individual identity, individual responsibility, amounts to a social construct.  If an abortionist is murdered, well, the blame must extend to everyone who in any way believes abortion is wrong and speaks out.  You can’t just hold one man accountable for his actions, after all.  Rather, you are a soulless meat puppet driven entirely by DNA and social conditioning.  “O’Reilly made me do it.”

At least, you can’t if he comes from the political right – and his actions are a convenient target for liberal propaganda and demagoguery.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe profoundly in individual identity and individual responsibility.  Does the left pump out hatred by the tonnage?  Sure it does.  But when some nut commits murder or performs some other hateful act, it is THAT person who bears the full weight of responsibility for his or her actions.  And that person alone.

So allow me to pat myself on the back for my moral superiority to Keith Olbermann and everyone like him as I refuse to attribute their “anti-choice” characterization of this martyr for the pro-life cause as being the reason for his murder.  Because whoever shot this pro-life activist HAD a choice – and chose to murder.

I’m the one who affirms choice, while demagogues like Olbermann and Dr. Carhart – who call me “anti-choice” for my pro-life stand – in all actuality believe that people don’t really have a “choice” at all, but are merely robots programmed by Bill O’Reilly or some other favored bogeyman.

The simple fact of the matter is that the left is “pro-choice” when it suits their agenda, and profoundly anti-choice the rest of the time.

So, go ahead, Keith Olbermann.  I’m waiting to hear your “balanced” coverage of the murder of a pro-life activist.

I leave you with a profound statement from the “terrorist” “anti-choice” position:

“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” — Mother Teresa

Gallup: Four Months Into Obama Rule, Republicans Now Tied With Democrats

If you’re a conservative, you’ve just gotta like this.

In the wake of a poll released after April 24, 2009, Democrats were loudly proclaiming a study showing Republican identification had dropped to 21%. The mainstream media pundits all agreed that the Republican Party was clearly dead. What the talking heads failed to mention was the fact that both parties had declined in identification (with independents growing and now representing the largest group), and the actual difference from the earliest poll result shown from January 2008 showed the Democrats had only picked up two points.

But get a load of what has been happening since:

Selected Trend on Party Affiliation: 2004-2009

	Republicans	Independents	Democrats	Republicans (including “leaners”)	Democrats (including “leaners”)
	%	%	%	%	%
2009 May 7-10	32	34	32	45	45
2009 Apr 20-21	27	36	36	39	50
2009 Apr 6-9	24	40	35	34	53

Just who has been losing, and just who has been gaining? With independent leaners factored in Republicans have pulled even with Democrats. And Republicans have gained 8 points while Democrats have lost 6 in just a month’s span. If you go back to April 9 – just a little bit over a month ago – the Democrats (who were 16 points up) have lost 14 of those points. And while the polling isn’t specific enough regarding independents, I don’t doubt for a nanosecond that conservative federalist-loving Libertarians are swelling the exploding ranks of independents, either.

Where are all of you mainstream media talking heads? You know, you guys who pronounced – and who are STILL pronouncing – the death of the Republican Party and conservatism based on the other poll a month ago? Where are you now? Where’s your “fair, accurate, and objective” reporting? Are you still mocking the Tea Parties with sexual innuendo that only you perverts understood in the first place? Where are your pronouncements of the demise of the Democratic Party now? You damn nest of dishonest propagandist demagogue snakes.

Nothing revitalizes the Republican Party like Democrat control of both the executive and the legislative branches. In just a few short months of hyperactive and incredibly expensive liberal unchecked power, Democrats no longer represent a majority of the nation, for the first time since 2005.

We’ve seen the worm turn just like this before: following the disaster of Jimmy Carter in 1980; and again following the disaster of the first Clinton term in 1994. People begin to realize that giving liberals power is rather like giving kindergartners loaded guns.

This comes on the heels of another beautiful new poll that shows 51% of Americans now identifying themselves as “pro-life” versus only 42% who identify themselves as “pro-choice”.

Democrats and the mainstream media have been ever so eager to pronounce the death of conservatism, but we aint going anywhere.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have a Speaker of the House who is having an increasingly difficult time keeping her various stories straight even as she undermines national security by falsely claiming the CIA lied to Congress. The Democrats have a Senate Majority Leader who is very unlikely to win reelection in 2010. They’ve got a Vice President who stupidly revealed the location of the VP’s bunker. Most political analysts outside of the mainstream media establishment would likely agree that such behaviors are not the best way to build the party brand.

Obama also faces looming catastrophes on the international front. A single terrorist attack and the President’s own Democratic Party may turn on the commander-in-chief who relabeled the “war on terror” the “overseas contingency operation” and then relabeled “terrorist attacks” as “man-caused disasters” to save their own political skins. Iran will almost certainly develop nuclear military capability under Obama’s watch. Pakistan – along with its nuclear arsenal – is looking more vulnerable to collapse almost by the day. North Korea has thumbed its nose at the U.S. and has restarted its nuclear weapons program. And there are literally more international crises developing than you can shake a stick at.

It is with that background that Democrats – who relentlessly demagogued and demonized George Bush over Gitmo – are now cringing their way into the very Bush policy they previously worked so hard to undermine.

As the world collapses, don’t think that Americans will continue to listen to the Democrat’s claims that it is all George Bush’s fault. The world is their baby now.

But what will likely ultimately most undermine the Democratic Party is that Democrats rammed through a porkulus package which is accomplishing little or even nothing – and which is actually locking out the counties that needed stimulus the most while giving the most funds to counties that needed it least.

While many economists believe that the economy will recover (including many economists who predicted that the economy would recover as well or better without a stimulus), there is an increasingly likely probability that any recovery will be temporary. The more than $12.8 trillion the administration has spent, loaned, or committed will ultimately devalue the currency and lead to economy-crucifying stagflation (a condition whereby inflation rises while the economy remains stagnate seen in the 1970s under Carter).

There’s little question that the anvil will fall on the US economy due to the near doubling of the national debt as Obama adds a projected $9.3 trillion to the $11.7 trillion hole we’re already in. Obama is borrowing 50 cents on the dollar as he explodes the federal deficit by spending four times more than Bush spent in 2008 and in the process “adding more to the debt than all presidents — from George Washington to George Bush — combined.” And most terrifying of all, Obama’s spending will cause debt to double from 41% of GDP in 2008 to a crushing 82% of GDP in 2019.

What will be the result of all this insane spending, and not very far off?  A quote from a CNS News story should awaken anyone who thinks the future will be rosy:

By 2019, the CBO said, a whopping 82 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) will go to pay down the national debt. This means that in future years, the government could owe its creditors more than the goods and services that the entire economy can produce.

We may literally be already doomed.  How are we possibly going to repay this?

Obama promised again and again that 95% of Americans would get a tax cut (which actually just means more welfare for the 43.4 percent who already don’t pay any federal income tax at all even as our small business owners who employ most American workers are increasingly taxed into oblivion). But Obama is going to make your upcoming new car dramatically more expensive; he’s going to make your energy dramatically more expensive; and just for your information the average 30 year old will pay $136,932.75 just for the interest of just Obama’s 2010 budget over the course of his or her working lifetime. Americans will be paying FAR more of their money to the government – and we will have only Democrats to thank for it.

The only two questions are 1) how soon the ten trillion ton anvil will fall on the U.S. economy, and 2) whether it will be too late for conservatives to save the country by the time the electorate return to their senses and realize that they voted for a gaggle of fools in 2008.

What Was Wrong With Obama’s Notre Dame Speech On Abortion?

By the mainline media’s “oh, isn’t he just wonderful?” gushing accounts of Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, it was a grand slam home run.  He was conciliatory, gracious, and non-partisan – and did I mention wonderful?

Among his other remarks, Obama said this:

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let’s make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. (Applause.) Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about. (Applause.)

First of all, Obama’s statement that abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision not made casually” is simply not true for a LOT of women.  For example, abortion is the top birth control option for women in Russia.  Are they a different species there?  Are women in Russia not women?  Are they not human?  Are they not in fact very much like us?  Another study found numerous women in the UK who had had five or more abortions, with “30 teenage girls a week asking for repeat abortions.”  I looked for numbers regarding the United States, but the numbers are not nearly as forthcoming given that NARAL and mainline media propaganda seem to dominate.  Abortion is surely a difficult choice for some women, but it is most certainly not a difficult choice whatsoever for all.  And I’m not going to pretend it is.

Some women decide to have abortions out of fear for the future.  But many others decide to do so for their own convenience for the simple reason that they don’t want a child and aren’t willing to carry their baby to term so he or she can be adopted.  It is not women who are victims of abortion, but the babies whom they abort.  Don’t ever forget that.

Then Obama says, “let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions.”  My question is why?  Because it sounds good coming out of the mouths of liberals talking the language of pro-lifers?  Why should a liberal care about reducing the numbers of abortions?  Isn’t abortion a sacrosanct right?  How many other sacred rights should be reduced? Would less free speech be a good thing?  How about fewer voters?  Maybe we can reduce the number of attorneys made available to those accused of crimes?

In the same vein, what of Obama’s description of abortion as “having both moral and spiritual dimensions”?  Really?  How does that make any sense whatsoever unless we are talking about a baby human being, rather than a blob of tissue?  Does having one’s tonsils removed have “moral and spiritual dimensions”?  Clearly it doesn’t.  There is clearly something more to the implications of abortion.  This use of language is nothing more than another example of Obama and those like him trying to use language in a deceptive manner to convey a false illusion of truth, of compassion, and of a genuine understanding the issues involved.

The fact of the matter is that pro-abortion folk speaking of wanting to reduce abortions or calling it a moral and spiritual decision is simply gobbledygook.

If pro-abortionists want to reduce the number of abortions, why on earth would they push so hard to make abortion more available?  Does anyone think that if we made drugs more available, the number of drug abusers would go down?  Should we offer crack cocaine in our schools, so that kids can be “pro-choice” on drugs and “reduce the number of addictions”?  How can you not spot the asininity of this rhetoric?

But it was when Obama spoke about honoring one another while we disagree on abortion that was the most insulting to moral intelligence.

Let me illustrate why I say the above thusly:

Suppose you have two little girls, and I kidnap one and kill her (to put in in abortionist terms, I “terminate her life”).  And it is my plan to soon do the same to the second daughter.  And I meet with the girls’ parents and I say, “Let’s not let our differences in opinion result in our hating one another.  I tell them, “The fact that I don’t believe your children are human beings worthy of life doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t ‘reduce those with differing views to caricature.'”  I beseech them to maintain “their open-hearts, their open minds, and their fair-minded words” as I dehumanize and terminate their precious babies.

Does anybody believe the parents would politely nod their heads in agreement?  After all, can’t we all just get along and disagree honorably about such things?

You know that isn’t what would happen.  Those parents would do anything to stop me.  And so would the police.  So would any passing citizen who had any moral decency at all and was in any position to prevent my harming those children.

The fact of the matter is, Obama’s rhetoric presupposes that this debate isn’t about the lives of babies, but rather some academic discussion regarding the rights of women over which we can disagree.  In other words, Obama’s call to “friendship,  civility, hospitality, and love” as we politely agree to disagree presume that babies aren’t being killed and no one is getting hurt.

For all the intelligence Obama is supposed to possess, listening to him is much more like eating candy than it is dining on profundity.  It’s junk food for the mind and the soul.

I don’t mind it one bit when pro-abortionists call me “anti-choice.”  I’m fine with their intensely hard feelings directed at me.  Because that’s the way it frankly should be: we are on opposite sides of the greatest life and death moral issue of all time (unless you can tell me something else that has ended more human lives than abortion).  It’s not supposed to be civil with such incredibly high stakes.

Which is why I’m not going to allow Barack Obama or anyone else to tell me, “Don’t get so worked up over abortion.  We’re all good people just trying to do the right thing.”

Sorry, Barry, but you are an advocate for baby killing.  You and people like you have murdered well over forty million innocent human lives, and one day a just and holy God will damn you to hell for it.  I’m not going to treat you with quit dignity and respect when you are systematically depriving millions of children of not only their dignity but their lives.  In the meantime, abortion and other child-reduction strategies have resulted in this nation going from about 16 workers for every retiree to only three workers for every retiree.  And within a matter of a relatively few years it will go down to only two workers for every single retiree.  And as our system breaks down we’ll get to enjoy hell early, and right here on earth, due to our abortion mindset.

With this in mind, consider another comment Obama made in his Notre Dame address, from the perspective of helpless unborn babies who have been dehumanized so that they can be killed by people who elevate convenience over another human being’s life:

Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

A new poll gives cause for celebration and hope: 51% of Americans now identify themselves as “pro-life” versus only 42% who identify themselves as “pro-choice” according to Gallup.  It never mattered whether a majority of Americans believed abortion was murder or not to make abortion murder.  For example, there was a time in this country’s history when most Americans believed blacks weren’t fully human; were they therefore not fully human?  But it is marvelous that the “majority says” argument has now officially been taken away from abortionists.

Three articles detailing Obama’s own association with abortion and outright infanticide:

Why Barack Obama Is A Baby Killer. Period.

Jill Stanek On Why Barack Obama Voted For Infanticide

Obama Crossed The Line From Abortion To Genuine Infanticide

Abortion Destroys More Than Just A Baby

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.

In Defense of Life

There are many people who oppose the abortion industry, but they generally can’t do a very good job explaining why. The Republican Party is officially pro-life in its platform, but I’ve never heard a GOP candidate offer a good reason for being pro-life. But there are excellent reasons for being pro-life, and it is way past time that society heard them.

Democrats and “pro-choice” proponents offer “a woman’s right to choose” as the primary reason to support abortion. But let us think about that for a moment: should women have “a right to choose?” Sure they should, up to a certain point. But should that right extend to anything a woman might want to do? What if she wants to drive her car through a crowd of people? What if she wants to hijack an airplane and fly it into a skyscraper? Clearly, a woman doesn’t – and shouldn’t – have a right to do anything she chooses. The first question needs therefore needs to be, “the right to choose to do what?”

If you were busily working on peeling potatoes over the kitchen sink when your oldest child came in and said, “Is it okay if I kill this?” What would you do? Would you say, “Sure! Go ahead! Since I’m not certain of the ontological status of whatever you’re considering killing, I’ll leave the decision up to you!” Or would you turn around and look to make sure your little gremlin wasn’t talking about your youngest child? (Or maybe it wouldn’t matter, because you’d figure your firstborn was exercising that sacrosanct “right to choose“?). The ability to use rhetoric to cast metaphysical doubt on the meaning of “being human” does not mean that ignorance is bliss, and one can abort at will. The fact of the matter is, we haven’t even begun to understand the miraculous – and it truly is miraculous – process of a baby forming in mommy’s womb. The age of viability has decreased dramatically; medical experts have been repeatedly proven dead wrong again and again in determining brain function in comatose patients who later recovered after being declared ‘brain dead’; the Hippocratic Oath recited by doctors for centuries explicitly banned the performing of abortions; and so on, and so on. When in doubt, why not choose life?

And there really is no doubt, once we truly consider the issues. Ever hear the argument that fetuses aren’t human beings, so it’s okay to kill them? Think again. Both science and logic assure us that – from the moment of conception – that thing in the womb of a human mother is fully a human being. Take a moment and consider the taxonomic system by which every living thing is rigorously categorized and classified. By that system a human embryo is of the kingdom Anamalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primate, of the family Pongidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species Sapiens – same as any other human being. Put even more simply, that embryo is a human by virtue of its parents, and a being by the fact that it is a living thing: it is a human being.

And then there’s that whole “It’s a woman’s body” line. That one falls rather flat as well. The fact is that that from the moment of fertilization there is a separate, distinct, unique genetic individual in the mother’s womb; every cell in its little body is different from that of its mother. Half of children are male, for goodness sake! We are clearly not talking about a woman’s body; we are talking about her child’s body.

Then there’s the notion of a woman’s rights to her own body, which views the baby in her womb as a hostile invader forcing itself upon her. Why should she carry it to term if she doesn’t want to? Well, for one thing, because it’s her child. The so-called “violinist argument” is fatally flawed from the outset by casting a woman’s child in terms of an unwanted intruder whom the woman has no moral obligation to care for. Furthermore, we would never consider that rather despicable line of moral reasoning after a child is born – when it actually requires a far greater sacrifice and burden to care for (ask a new mother whether her child required more chasing around the house before or after birth). We go from the rather passive act of “being pregnant” to the extremely active act of caring for a newborn – and that burden proceeds to continue for years as the child grows up. Leave your five year old at home and go gamble in Las Vegas for a week and see what happens when you come back home if you don’t believe me. See how far that, “But I have a right to my own body” line takes you. It ought to take you all the way to jail for abandoning your child.

If this isn’t enough to dispel the “woman’s right to her own body” argument, then let us think about the way they are using the term “rights.” We must realize that in virtually every case one person’s right presupposes someone else’s duty. One person’s right to freedom of speech imposes the duty upon the remainder of society to tolerate what might be offensive to them for the greater good of a free society. In other cases, the duty imposed is far more selective: When liberals describe the duty of the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, they are imposing a duty on a small class of people. The wealthiest 5% of Americans already pay 57% of the taxes, and the wealthiest 10% pay 68% of the tab. The top 1% earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the taxes; meanwhile the “poorest” 50% of Americans earn 13% of the income but pay only 3% of the taxes. This introduces a legitimate question for some future discussion: just how much more should the wealthy be expected to pay? [Don’t allow the issue of taxation to distract you from my argument: I merely raise taxation as an issue in which certain advocates subjectively claim that a few should have a duty to pay more, while the majority should have a right to pay less]. But in the case of abortion, the right given to the mother presupposes the most extreme duty upon one single individual – her child – the duty to die for the convenience of its mother. On the side of the “right of a woman to choose” are not only women who suddenly find themselves pregnant and their anxious parents, but hedonistic men and women who want to abdicate any responsibility for their “sexual expression,” along with a powerful media culture that aggressively pursues the same end, a powerful abortion industry and its lobby, the stem cell research lobby, unelected judges who impose their will on society, etcetera. Who is on the side of the right of the unborn to live? The Constitution – which guarantees the right to life as preeminent over all others – but other than that, far too few allies. One side has sole access to the megaphone; the other cannot speak. If we were to stop focusing on the Constitutionally-invisible “right to choose” and focus just for a moment on the DUTY OF PARENTS to nurture and care for their children, we would have a very different discussion indeed. I cannot help but remember the slogan of the Ministry of Health vans that Nazi Germany used to haul away retarded children, epileptics, children with malformed ears, chronic bed wetters, and the like to their deaths: Lebensunwertes Leben – “Life Unworthy of Life.” Today I still see cars bearing bumper stickers with the equally oxymoronic – but far more deadly – slogan, “Pro child, Pro choice.” What a shame that so many Americans have so blithely come to champion Nazi morality.

Then there’s that, “It’s only a potential human being” pseudo-argument. First of all, I’m not even sure what it means to be “a potential human being” – and neither do those who are reciting it. I do understand what it means to be “a human being with potential.” Let us begin this discussion with the straightforward observation that had your mother decided to have an abortion during her pregnancy with you, that you would not have been born. It would NOT have been some potential you that perished; it would have been you. You would have been one of the nearly 50,000,000 babies in America alone who were killed by abortion. Just as you were once a child, once a toddler, once an infant, you were also once a fetus, once an embryo, once a zygote. Killing you while you in any of those stages would have killed you just as dead.

And let us pause for a moment to consider what murder actually does to the victim. The character Clint Eastwood played in Unforgiven put it pretty well: “When you kill a man, you take away everything he has and everything he’s ever going to have.” A human baby will naturally inherit every quality of human life unless someone steps in and unnaturally ends that life. It is simply his or her nature as a human being to do so. You merely have to contemplate your own life to consider what would have been taken away from you had you been among the abortion statistics. This idea of “potential” as some ambiguous term that allows a mother to kill her baby is as ridiculous as it is amoral. If I were to walk up to you in a parking lot as you got out of your car and shoot you to death, what would I be guilty of? I certainly didn’t take away your past, as it has already happened. And if your future – when is clearly merely “potential” – doesn’t count, all I truly deprived you of is the two or three seconds of immediate conscious awareness. And I could have deprived you of at least that much had I merely asked you for the time instead of shooting you! For murder to be a serious crime, “potential” has to be a real, tangible thing that has intrinsic, incommensurable value. To attempt to argue that an unborn baby’s potential is somehow meaningless but a born person’s matters is both a fundamentally irrational and immoral distinction that leads inevitably to a degradation in the value of human life. Tyrants have routinely made the same type of “status of humanity determined by selective criterion” distinction when they said that Jews, or blacks, or any other class of people should not matter.

Deep down, I believe that even the Democrats and other abortion advocates realize the immorality of abortion in their choice of language. They demonstrate this by reciting the new mantra, “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” But why on earth should it be rare if it is a fundamental human right? How many other basic rights should be rare? Put “free speech,” “freedom of the press,” “the right to peaceably assemble,” or any other right that liberals hold as sacrosanct into this “____ should be safe, legal, and rare” equation and see how it flies. If abortion is a good thing, why on earth should it be rare? In point of fact, we should be encouraging more of it, not less.

During the Lincoln-Douglas presidential debates, when Douglas said that states ought to have a right to choose the institution of slavery, Lincoln famously said, “One cannot say that people have a right to do wrong.” Fortunately the country chose Lincoln’s moral reasoning over Douglas’. The Civil War was subsequently waged by a Confederacy which argued that their own rights were being systematically violated, even as they inhumanly violated the most fundamental rights of the blacks they oppressed. Apart from the fact that the party of Lincoln, the party of abolition, was the Republican Party and the party of Douglas, the party of institutionalized slavery, was the Democratic Party, I cannot help but see the parallels between the Party of Slavery and the Party of Abortion. For one thing, the Party of Abortion uses the identical arguments to justify its abominable institution that the Party of Slavery relied upon. For another, the Party of Abortion is just as insistent upon its “rights” as was the Party of Slavery, even as they systematically violate the rights of the most innocent and most helpless.