John Fielding
On Saturday, June 20, 2009, the local Democratic Committee pushed the envelope further by voting to support hard-left Senator Daylin Leach's proposed legislation legalizing marriage for gays:
"The following resolution was passed on 6/20/2009 by the Berks County Democratic Committee:
Whereas Senator Daylin Leach recently introduced legislation that would make Pennsylvania the 7th state to legalize marriage equality;
Whereas at the same time, 13 Pennsylvania State Senators, including 2 Democrats, have signed on to John Eichelberger's bill to ban marriage equality;
Whereas both bills, the bill for equality and the bill for discrimination, are seeking more co-sponsors,
We, the members of the Berks County Democratic Committee, urge our State Senators to do two things:
1) Co-sponsor The Marriage Equality Bill (SB 935), and
2) Say no to discrimination and bigotry by refusing to co-sponsor the bill to ban marriage equality.
We, urge our State Senators to co-sponsor Senate Bill 935, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. S.B. 935 would allow our state to join ranks with our neighbors in Maine, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Massachusetts by offering full and equal marriage rights to same-sex couples in Pennsylvania.
S.B. 935 would not require religious institutions to perform any marriage ceremonies or recognize any marriages that they do not wish to sanction. The legislation would dissolve all of the barriers to building families that gay and lesbian couples currently face, both at the state and federal level.
We also strongly urge our Senators to refuse to co-sponsor Senator Eichelberger's attempt to ban marriage equality and insert discrimination into the Pennsylvania Constitution."
Sorry, life is about discrimination. In fact, "discrimination" is just another word for "choice," another word near and dear to far left extremists, at least with regard to one issue.
Because left-wing extemists are the most anti-choice people in existence. Laws limit choice by definition, and left-wingers are the most legislation and litigation-happy groups I can think of. Every time their knickers get in a bunch about some social cause, nothing must do but that we must pass another law telling some individual or group that they may not choose to do something that is on the current list of liberal no-no's. Only once, in the case of the murder of unborn children, do they suddenly discover a "right-to-choose."
Law legislates morality and, therefore, regulates choice. In this case, it's just a question of whose morality: America's or Sodom's. The Berks Democrats have shown us whose morality they back.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Palin Proves Conservatives Can Fight Pop Culture and Win
Gary Bauer
Posted 06/19/2009 ET
In the Age of Obama, many conservatives are consoling themselves with this thought: Conservatism wins on the issues. Polls show majorities of Americans want less government and fewer and lower taxes; they want leaders who will stand up to our enemies; they are skeptical about the science of global warming; they want public policy to show respect for human life at all stages, and, yes, most Americans still believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
A Gallup poll this week showed 40 percent of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, while just 21 percent self identify as liberal.
Though conservative values remain popular among Americans overall, they have never been embraced by the popular culture. Hollywood, the music industry, sports and the fashion world are all overwhelmingly liberal. In these sectors of American society, conservative positions almost always lose.
These realities make the recent Sarah Palin-David Letterman dust-up quite interesting. For decades conservatives have engaged the popular culture at their peril. Whenever conservatives pushed back against the excesses of the pop culture, they risked getting labeled bigoted, ignorant or, worst of all, prudish.
But Sarah Palin has proved that conservatives can fight the pop culture and win. That’s because while many Americans consume the entertainment of people like David Letterman, they embrace the values of people like Sarah Palin.
The controversy surrounds comments made more than a week ago by the "Late Show" host. Letterman joked that Palin, who was in New York City to attend an autism event, had bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look. He later added that Palin had attended a New York Yankees baseball game, and that during the seventh inning stretch Palin’s daughter had been “knocked up” by Yankees’ libidinous third baseman Alex Rodriguez.
Letterman claims he was referring to Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, but only Palin’s 14-year-old daughter, Willow, attended the game with her mother. So Letterman ended up joking about statutory rape.
Initially, Letterman did not apologize. While jokes that sexualize kids are “crude, sexist, perverted,” as Palin stated in response to Letterman, they have sadly become a comedic staple. Watch the most popular comedians and you’ll find many jokes are intended to humiliate, demean and tear down. Throw in some disgusting sexual references and you have a perfect recipe for big laughs in today’s popular culture. And if the target of the comedian’s demeaning sexual jokes is a conservative politician, so much the better.
There is an obvious double standard. What would have happened had Letterman made the same joke about Barack Obama and his family? We know. Letterman would have been forced into early retirement, and perhaps prosecuted under some “hate crimes” statute.
Letterman then offered a snarky non-apology apology in which he insisted he had meant to suggest that Bristol, not Willow, had been “knocked up” by A-Rod. While there is a significant legal difference, only according to our cultural elites could the addition of four years transform a beyond-the-pale insinuation into an acceptable punch-line. The target of his cruel insinuations remained a young girl who, through no fault of her own, is the daughter of a political figure.
Finally, after a week, Letterman offered something closer to a legitimate apology, which Palin graciously accepted. I doubt Letterman would have apologized had he not been forced to do so. But his jokes caused a huge backlash among his viewers, some of whom formed a campaign to urge CBS to fire him.
Viewers were so irate that one "Late Show" advertiser pulled its sponsorship. Letterman was slammed by women’s groups across the ideological spectrum. Even the National Organization for Women denounced him for “snicker[ing] about men having sex with teenage girls (or women) less than half their age…”
Despite the strong backlash, some conservatives argued that Palin was wrong to call out Letterman for his outrageous remarks. One commentator predicted that critiques of Letterman would lead to a form of censorship, while a former GOP advisor said going after Letterman made Republicans look small, and insisted the entire episode was a “win-win for Letterman.”
Letterman has enjoyed a temporary ratings boost, but there’s deeper meaning in the incident. The cultural left lampoons Palin because her values and life are completely foreign to them. They find it bizarre that she hunts, prays and says things like “you betcha.’” They can’t fathom that she brought a child with Down syndrome to term and that she didn’t pressure her daughter into aborting an unexpected pregnancy.
Letterman may not know anyone who would vote for Palin or a family that looks like hers. But his Palin joke backfired in part because scores of millions of Americans are living lives that more closely resemble Palin’s life than Letterman’s. Like Palin, they pray in churches, hunt and fish and raise imperfect families with unconditional love. They are more than uneasy about the culture’s sexualization of children and its infantilization of adults.
The cultural left mocks Palin’s values, but its taunts often fail to gain traction, because Palin’s politics and principles are much more main-stream than those of her critics. Sarah Palin is a false target for the popular culture. It can’t resist the temptation to ridicule and lampoon her, but she offers too much common sense and inspiration to make for good jokes.
In the Age of Obama, pop culture elites may be excused for their over-the-top bashing of conservatives. Liberals have always controlled the popular culture, and now they control government too. They probably assume most of the country has shifted leftward and come round to their view of the world. But it hasn’t. Just ask David Letterman.
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Posted 06/19/2009 ET
In the Age of Obama, many conservatives are consoling themselves with this thought: Conservatism wins on the issues. Polls show majorities of Americans want less government and fewer and lower taxes; they want leaders who will stand up to our enemies; they are skeptical about the science of global warming; they want public policy to show respect for human life at all stages, and, yes, most Americans still believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman.
A Gallup poll this week showed 40 percent of Americans interviewed describe their political views as conservative, while just 21 percent self identify as liberal.
Though conservative values remain popular among Americans overall, they have never been embraced by the popular culture. Hollywood, the music industry, sports and the fashion world are all overwhelmingly liberal. In these sectors of American society, conservative positions almost always lose.
These realities make the recent Sarah Palin-David Letterman dust-up quite interesting. For decades conservatives have engaged the popular culture at their peril. Whenever conservatives pushed back against the excesses of the pop culture, they risked getting labeled bigoted, ignorant or, worst of all, prudish.
But Sarah Palin has proved that conservatives can fight the pop culture and win. That’s because while many Americans consume the entertainment of people like David Letterman, they embrace the values of people like Sarah Palin.
The controversy surrounds comments made more than a week ago by the "Late Show" host. Letterman joked that Palin, who was in New York City to attend an autism event, had bought makeup from Bloomingdale’s to update her “slutty flight attendant” look. He later added that Palin had attended a New York Yankees baseball game, and that during the seventh inning stretch Palin’s daughter had been “knocked up” by Yankees’ libidinous third baseman Alex Rodriguez.
Letterman claims he was referring to Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, Bristol, but only Palin’s 14-year-old daughter, Willow, attended the game with her mother. So Letterman ended up joking about statutory rape.
Initially, Letterman did not apologize. While jokes that sexualize kids are “crude, sexist, perverted,” as Palin stated in response to Letterman, they have sadly become a comedic staple. Watch the most popular comedians and you’ll find many jokes are intended to humiliate, demean and tear down. Throw in some disgusting sexual references and you have a perfect recipe for big laughs in today’s popular culture. And if the target of the comedian’s demeaning sexual jokes is a conservative politician, so much the better.
There is an obvious double standard. What would have happened had Letterman made the same joke about Barack Obama and his family? We know. Letterman would have been forced into early retirement, and perhaps prosecuted under some “hate crimes” statute.
Letterman then offered a snarky non-apology apology in which he insisted he had meant to suggest that Bristol, not Willow, had been “knocked up” by A-Rod. While there is a significant legal difference, only according to our cultural elites could the addition of four years transform a beyond-the-pale insinuation into an acceptable punch-line. The target of his cruel insinuations remained a young girl who, through no fault of her own, is the daughter of a political figure.
Finally, after a week, Letterman offered something closer to a legitimate apology, which Palin graciously accepted. I doubt Letterman would have apologized had he not been forced to do so. But his jokes caused a huge backlash among his viewers, some of whom formed a campaign to urge CBS to fire him.
Viewers were so irate that one "Late Show" advertiser pulled its sponsorship. Letterman was slammed by women’s groups across the ideological spectrum. Even the National Organization for Women denounced him for “snicker[ing] about men having sex with teenage girls (or women) less than half their age…”
Despite the strong backlash, some conservatives argued that Palin was wrong to call out Letterman for his outrageous remarks. One commentator predicted that critiques of Letterman would lead to a form of censorship, while a former GOP advisor said going after Letterman made Republicans look small, and insisted the entire episode was a “win-win for Letterman.”
Letterman has enjoyed a temporary ratings boost, but there’s deeper meaning in the incident. The cultural left lampoons Palin because her values and life are completely foreign to them. They find it bizarre that she hunts, prays and says things like “you betcha.’” They can’t fathom that she brought a child with Down syndrome to term and that she didn’t pressure her daughter into aborting an unexpected pregnancy.
Letterman may not know anyone who would vote for Palin or a family that looks like hers. But his Palin joke backfired in part because scores of millions of Americans are living lives that more closely resemble Palin’s life than Letterman’s. Like Palin, they pray in churches, hunt and fish and raise imperfect families with unconditional love. They are more than uneasy about the culture’s sexualization of children and its infantilization of adults.
The cultural left mocks Palin’s values, but its taunts often fail to gain traction, because Palin’s politics and principles are much more main-stream than those of her critics. Sarah Palin is a false target for the popular culture. It can’t resist the temptation to ridicule and lampoon her, but she offers too much common sense and inspiration to make for good jokes.
In the Age of Obama, pop culture elites may be excused for their over-the-top bashing of conservatives. Liberals have always controlled the popular culture, and now they control government too. They probably assume most of the country has shifted leftward and come round to their view of the world. But it hasn’t. Just ask David Letterman.
Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Real Importance of the Sotomayor Fight
June 18, 2009
By Richard A. Viguerie
The confirmation fight over Judge Sonia Sotomayor shouldn't be approached as merely about filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Even as important as that is, this confirmation fight is bigger than that. It is a fight about whether the Constitution any longer constrains the power of government by and according to its terms. It is about President Obama's view of government power versus the view held by most Americans.
President Obama's nomination of Judge Sotomayor has so far managed to unite all wings of the conservative movement -- economic, foreign policy, social, traditional and libertarian -- in a way we haven't seen since the early Clinton years. How the various wings of conservatism define and contrast our constitutionalist views against the president's could literally determine the fate of his entire political agenda.
Conservatives are for limited government because the Constitution was set up in a way to counteract the natural predilections of man to abuse the power of government. It is government that can most systematically and egregiously limit life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution, properly construed, protects the people and allows the greatest exercise of man's capacities. Improperly construed, we are weaker and less free. Obama wants it improperly construed.
The enumeration and separation of powers, rights reserved to the people and the states, freedoms of conscience, limits on government intrusion into our property, the right to bear arms, etc. are the distinctions of the United States that account for America's unique place in history. They, not the federal government itself nor the individuals who run it, enable our greatness as a nation.
In those regards, the Sotomayor confirmation fight is bigger than all other policy matters such as deficit spending to rejuvenate the welfare state, nationalized health care, national security, etc. Those who see this confirmation battle as about just Judge Sotomayor miss the larger point. This is really about President Obama's harmful and dangerous view of government power.
President Obama wants to remake and thereby weaken America by avoiding the constraints in the Constitution and its structure for political accountability. He is faced with circumstances that make that possible: (1) economic turmoil, (2) a sycophantic press, (2) a passive and sympathetic Congress, and (4) a judiciary that too often refuses to insist that the other two branches act within their enumerated powers. He has taken advantage of those circumstances to expedite his government power grab at a dizzying pace. If Americans had time to absorb what he was doing and the freedoms they were losing, he would not succeed.
We are distracted by Obama's blitz because we have too many attacks on our system to confront effectively at once. That is why it is important for conservatives to focus foremost on the Sotomayor confirmation fight. Within that one fight alone we can address the very reasons why, as polls show consistently, conservatism is twice as popular as liberalism. This confirmation fight can weaken Obama's march to a form of government inconsistent with the Constitution if conservatives grasp the challenge.
The official confirmation battle rests in the hands of Senate Republicans. Collectively, they have not always been friends of conservatives or our causes. However, Judiciary Committee ranking minority member Jeff Sessions is not only a reliably principled conservative, he seems to understand what's at stake in the Sotomayor confirmation.
Senator Sessions will need the help of his colleagues, but given their numerical status, their performance will need to be exceptional. Grassroots conservatives must therefore remind them daily what's at stake, which is a long and bleak minority status for Republicans, and a change for the worse in our entire system of government.
The quality, intelligence and competence of how Senate Republicans deal with the Obama view of the judiciary and the Constitution itself can only be effective if they show passion, resolve and principle. How they perform will determine whether they are testaments to our heritage, or its goats.
If Senate Republicans fail to understand what's at stake, not only might the next election be the last for many of them, history will point a mercilessly unforgiving finger at them. Conservatives at the national, state and local levels therefore need to emphasize those consequences. We cannot wait for, nor depend on, Senate Republicans to define President Obama. We must do that.
We now have a president who does not believe he needs authority provided in Article II or in authorizing legislation before he can buy and run American businesses, appoint czars overseeing the private sector without Senate confirmation or legal authority, unlawfully fire inspector generals attempting to prevent abuse in how taxpayer dollars are spent, or act on nearly any other matter and often using his power for political patronage.
Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in the 1952 case barring President Harry Truman from nationalizing the steel industry during a wartime emergency says about presidential power unrestrained by the Constitution:
"Such power either has no beginning or it has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint. I am not alarmed it would plunge us straightway into dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong direction."
America is on a precipice. The Sotomayor confirmation battle is the best chance for conservatives to articulate our constitutional view of governing and define Obama's attempt to alter our democracy. It is about whether he will make us a lesser nation, and who will stand up against him.
Richard A. Viguerie was called "one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" (The Nation), and one of the 13 "conservatives of the century" (The Washington Times).
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_real_importance_of_the_sot_1.html at June 19, 2009 - 08:13:23 AM EDT
By Richard A. Viguerie
The confirmation fight over Judge Sonia Sotomayor shouldn't be approached as merely about filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Even as important as that is, this confirmation fight is bigger than that. It is a fight about whether the Constitution any longer constrains the power of government by and according to its terms. It is about President Obama's view of government power versus the view held by most Americans.
President Obama's nomination of Judge Sotomayor has so far managed to unite all wings of the conservative movement -- economic, foreign policy, social, traditional and libertarian -- in a way we haven't seen since the early Clinton years. How the various wings of conservatism define and contrast our constitutionalist views against the president's could literally determine the fate of his entire political agenda.
Conservatives are for limited government because the Constitution was set up in a way to counteract the natural predilections of man to abuse the power of government. It is government that can most systematically and egregiously limit life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution, properly construed, protects the people and allows the greatest exercise of man's capacities. Improperly construed, we are weaker and less free. Obama wants it improperly construed.
The enumeration and separation of powers, rights reserved to the people and the states, freedoms of conscience, limits on government intrusion into our property, the right to bear arms, etc. are the distinctions of the United States that account for America's unique place in history. They, not the federal government itself nor the individuals who run it, enable our greatness as a nation.
In those regards, the Sotomayor confirmation fight is bigger than all other policy matters such as deficit spending to rejuvenate the welfare state, nationalized health care, national security, etc. Those who see this confirmation battle as about just Judge Sotomayor miss the larger point. This is really about President Obama's harmful and dangerous view of government power.
President Obama wants to remake and thereby weaken America by avoiding the constraints in the Constitution and its structure for political accountability. He is faced with circumstances that make that possible: (1) economic turmoil, (2) a sycophantic press, (2) a passive and sympathetic Congress, and (4) a judiciary that too often refuses to insist that the other two branches act within their enumerated powers. He has taken advantage of those circumstances to expedite his government power grab at a dizzying pace. If Americans had time to absorb what he was doing and the freedoms they were losing, he would not succeed.
We are distracted by Obama's blitz because we have too many attacks on our system to confront effectively at once. That is why it is important for conservatives to focus foremost on the Sotomayor confirmation fight. Within that one fight alone we can address the very reasons why, as polls show consistently, conservatism is twice as popular as liberalism. This confirmation fight can weaken Obama's march to a form of government inconsistent with the Constitution if conservatives grasp the challenge.
The official confirmation battle rests in the hands of Senate Republicans. Collectively, they have not always been friends of conservatives or our causes. However, Judiciary Committee ranking minority member Jeff Sessions is not only a reliably principled conservative, he seems to understand what's at stake in the Sotomayor confirmation.
Senator Sessions will need the help of his colleagues, but given their numerical status, their performance will need to be exceptional. Grassroots conservatives must therefore remind them daily what's at stake, which is a long and bleak minority status for Republicans, and a change for the worse in our entire system of government.
The quality, intelligence and competence of how Senate Republicans deal with the Obama view of the judiciary and the Constitution itself can only be effective if they show passion, resolve and principle. How they perform will determine whether they are testaments to our heritage, or its goats.
If Senate Republicans fail to understand what's at stake, not only might the next election be the last for many of them, history will point a mercilessly unforgiving finger at them. Conservatives at the national, state and local levels therefore need to emphasize those consequences. We cannot wait for, nor depend on, Senate Republicans to define President Obama. We must do that.
We now have a president who does not believe he needs authority provided in Article II or in authorizing legislation before he can buy and run American businesses, appoint czars overseeing the private sector without Senate confirmation or legal authority, unlawfully fire inspector generals attempting to prevent abuse in how taxpayer dollars are spent, or act on nearly any other matter and often using his power for political patronage.
Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in the 1952 case barring President Harry Truman from nationalizing the steel industry during a wartime emergency says about presidential power unrestrained by the Constitution:
"Such power either has no beginning or it has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint. I am not alarmed it would plunge us straightway into dictatorship, but it is at least a step in that wrong direction."
America is on a precipice. The Sotomayor confirmation battle is the best chance for conservatives to articulate our constitutional view of governing and define Obama's attempt to alter our democracy. It is about whether he will make us a lesser nation, and who will stand up against him.
Richard A. Viguerie was called "one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" (The Nation), and one of the 13 "conservatives of the century" (The Washington Times).
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_real_importance_of_the_sot_1.html at June 19, 2009 - 08:13:23 AM EDT
Thursday, June 4, 2009
49 Million to Five
by Ann Coulter
Posted 06/03/2009 ET
Updated 06/03/2009 ET
In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.
Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence -- with minor edits -- of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"?
For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.
Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.
But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.
Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists -- not a squeamish bunch -- in the entire country would perform them.
Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.
In return for blood money from Tiller's profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.
In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton's White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals' protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill.
Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to "substantial and irreversible conditions" justifying his late-term abortions.
Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller's blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.
But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.
Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.
The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?
I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?
Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Posted 06/03/2009 ET
Updated 06/03/2009 ET
In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.
Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence -- with minor edits -- of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"?
For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.
Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.
According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.
In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.
Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.
So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.
But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.
Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists -- not a squeamish bunch -- in the entire country would perform them.
Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.
In return for blood money from Tiller's profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.
In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton's White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals' protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill.
Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to "substantial and irreversible conditions" justifying his late-term abortions.
Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller's blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.
But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.
Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.
The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?
I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?
Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.
Copyright © 2009 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
