I firmly believe that abortion is murder.  It is murder of the most helpless and innocent.  I also believe that life begins at conception.  At the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution every State treated abortion as murder, relying on English Common law, rather than a formal State law.  Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution nor is it defined as a crime.  That is of no significance when it comes to allowing the States to criminalize abortion.  Murder is not defined in the Constitution nor is a punishment prescribed, yet murder is illegal in all 50 States.  The only crimes defined by the US Constitution are treason, counterfeiting, piracy and felonies committed on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, and tax evasion.  These are the only crimes the federal government is authorized to punish by the Constitution.  All other crimes remain the exclusive constitutional domain of the States.  This was done to prevent the federal government from growing large enough to be a threat to the sovereignty of the States.  If there were more federal crimes then the federal government would need a federal police force, federal prisons, and a very large federal court system.  Unfortunately the federal government has ignored the Constitution and seized so much government functions from the States that it now has all of this.  The federal government now dwarfs the States and has become a direct threat to the sovereignty of the States.

It is wrong to say that abortion is a states’ rights issue.  It is more accurate to describe abortion as one of the vast majority of potential crimes that States have the authority to define and prescribe punishment, while the federal government does not.  Here is how James Madison described the relationship between State and federal government when he wrote Federalist paper number 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

This principle, which is called federalism, is enshrined in the 10th Amendment.  The federal government is granted only a very limited number of government powers which are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.  The States are denied an even more limited number of powers which are also clearly spelled out.  All remaining powers are retained by the States or the people.  The power to define crimes such as murder is not granted to the federal government nor is it denied to the States; therefore it remains with the States.  The same holds true for the power to outlaw abortion and other similar practices.   Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion for Roe v Wade violated the principle of federalism and the 10th Amendment.   Here are two excerpts from the opinion which reveal the twisted logic used by Justice Blackmun.

The principal thrust of appellant’s attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

According to Justice Blackmun, the Supreme Court can overrule the States on abortion because the due process clause of the 14th Amendment incorporated every single right included in the Bill of Rights down to the States.  This would shock those that wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment.  The Bill of Rights never extended to the States, each State has its own Bill of Rights.  The 14th Amendment due process clause is an exact duplicate of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.  It extended the protection from only that one clause of the Bill of Rights down to the State level.  Not much was written about the due process clause when the Bill of Rights was written because this concept was universally understood.  It dates back to the Manga Carta and was an integral part of English Common Law.  Here is what William Blackstone had to say when he wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England

The law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.

The due process clause prevents the government from taking away your freedom, in other words, locking you up, without going through a formal legal procedure.  It was meant to ensure everyone has a fair trial, not allow abortions.  The writers of the 14th Amendment never intended that this Amendment would allow the Supreme Court to overturn State laws preventing abortion.  All 36 States outlawed abortion before this amendment was ratified in 1868.  It was not until 1973 that Justice Blackmun used this amendment to overturn a Texas law.

Every State has a moral obligation to criminalize abortion because no one has a right to commit murder.  Every individual is endowed by God with inalienable rights at conception.  The most important of these rights are life and liberty.  Abortion steals the life of the unborn child and robs it of a life time of deciding for itself.  Liberty is the freedom to do what you want as long as you do not hurt others and do not interfere with the rights of others.  Because abortion violates both principles, no one has a right to an abortion.  President Trump needs to nominate a Supreme Court Justice that will overturn Roe v Wade and we need to work to make sure abortion is outlawed in every State.

If you haven’t watched “Man in the High Castle” and you’re an Amazon Prime member, put it on your weekend “To Do” list.  I’m only on the first season, but it’s an amazing dystopian view of an America that lost World War Two.  One of the most intriguing characters (to me anyway) is John Smith, a Nazi SS agent that is hunting down members of the American resistance movement.

Warning: Spoilers below from Episode 8 of Season 1.

In previous episodes, little things crop up indicating the Nazis continued their ethnic cleansing efforts.  One episode features ash raining down from the incinerators due to a weekly burning of the infirm and cripples.  Other Nazis make references to “cleansing” of all the Semites in Europe.

John Smith gets a nasty surprise in Episode 8. He travels to his son’s school to find out why the school nurse keeps pulling him out of sports.  The school doctor shocks him with news that his son has a form of muscular dystrophy.  As a degenerative disease, this means John will have to kill his son, since he would be crippled by the incurable disease.  It’s definitely hard to watch the doctor pass John vials and recommend that he “take care of this at home.”

Thankfully, we live in a better world, where we wouldn’t make such decisions…or do we?

Currently in Europe, 88% of pregnancies that screen for Down Syndrome are terminated.  Even though people with Trisomy-21 can do everything from hold teaching jobs to swim the English Channel, European families have decided these “infirm” aren’t worth living.

For fans of abortion, this kid isn’t worth fighting for

In America, abortions take on a more genocidal role for African Americans.  Only 13% of the population, African Americans account for about 35% of abortions in America.

Going by the latest CDC data, there were at least 664,435 abortions in 2013. That’s more lives lost than heart disease (see page 5), and that’s without accounting for the fact that not all states report abortion data to the CDC, which would only drive the abortion number higher.

We’ve managed to win the war against the Nazis only to allow part of their ideology to take over. As we sit on the cusp of a new year, perhaps we can find ways to use our medical advances to save lives instead of ending them.


This post represents the views of the author and does not represent views of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other agency.


Check out NG36Bs blog here, and be sure to donate to Da Tip Jar!

As many Republicans finish basking in their victory over their Democratic relatives they only see at Christmastime, we’re looking at the final week of 2016. More importantly, we’re looking at the final four weeks of the Obama administration with new information that needs to be applied going further, particularly for conservatives.

For some of us, the future is about building on the successes of 2016 and applying our newfound DC dominance towards solving problems. For a number of stalwart conservatives who are still skeptical about what the future holds, there are lessons to learn and challenges to address in order to steer the Trump administration and GOP Congress in the right direction.

Some of the lessons from 2016 are obvious and won’t be covered here such as Obamacare (just repeal it), terrorism (do what it takes to stop it), gun rights (protect them), and mainstream media (don’t trust them). Other lessons need more focus if we’re going to have a productive 2017. Here are the top 7 lessons to heed.

Stick to our guns on abortion

The narrative of pro-life versus pro-choice has been shifted. We’re still addressing our movement with the same basic language, but the left is now pushing “reproductive rights” over “choice” because they simply couldn’t get around the idea that the baby must be considered in choices. In many ways, this leftward push towards politically correcting their narrative worked against them, but that doesn’t mean they’ll continue to lose.

Abortion is a cultural issue that has seeped into politics. It’s imperative for the pro-life movement to stay with the message of life beginning in the womb and not after birth. This stance will allow for more states to ban abortions at 20- or 24-weeks and will enable us to push those protections even closer to conception in the future. All we need to do is let science meld with emotion. This is political, but it must be fought on a cultural level if we’re going to continue to make up ground.

Democrats won’t be complacent again

The certainty the Democrats felt about winning the Presidency and the Senate left them absolutely shocked on election night. They didn’t lose so badly because they didn’t have enough supporters. They lost because in the key states there was enough complacency to prevent them from getting out the vote the way Obama did in 2008 and 2012.

It won’t happen again, at least not for a long time. They will come out hard in 2018. 2020 could be a bloodbath if Trump isn’t successful. They have the ammunition they need to get out the vote. They were overconfident; how many Democrats didn’t vote because they were so certain of victory? That will be the rallying cry going forward, so Republicans need to get their people out with as much fervor.

Free trade has enemies in every corner

It was once safe to assume that the Republican Party was the party of free trade. That simply isn’t so anymore as many party-line followers hear the message of fair trade and believe that it’s the new game plan. Fiscal conservatives who believe in the free market economy have to fight both the GOP and the Democrats to achieve the business growth and financial environment necessary for future prosperity.

Now more than ever, trade must flourish. It’s worrisome that so many in both major parties are fighting against this. It’s up to conservatives to hammer the message back in place before we start seeing the cost-expanding effects of “fair” trade.

Immigration is a winning issue

Remember that taboo of illegal immigration, walls, and deportations that allegedly helped doom Mitt Romney in 2012? Trump’s message was even harsher and it worked.

Illegal immigration is a major problem that most Americans can acknowledge. While more Americans lean in favor of some variation of amnesty, 2016 proved that it’s not important enough of an issue to prevent candidates from winning. Particularly when we tie it to the two biggest hot buttons – economy and terrorism – we’ll be able to continue to fight open borders, amnesty, and other liberal immigration principles without fear of losing elections.

Smaller-government needs further prioritization

Killing some regulations, pulling back on the reins in some departments, and eliminating most of Barack Obama’s executive orders is a good place to start, but doing so will only bring us back a decade when government overreach was still rampant. It will take a much more pronounced attack on big government to make a dent which is why I’m now a Federalist.

What’s worse is that many of the proposals coming from our future leaders in DC are pushing for bigger government. From a trillion dollar infrastructure plan to expansion of certain very expensive programs and initiatives, we have our work cut out for us. Reducing the size of government hasn’t been a priority since the last Federalist President, Ronald Reagan. We need to bring it back to the forefront quickly or continue to suffer through a two-party system where both sides increase budgets, bureaucracy, and power in DC.

Subsidies aren’t necessary for buying votes

One of the most important lessons that was forgotten by many is that subsidies don’t win elections the way they once did. Ted Cruz demonstrated that in the Iowa caucus by winning while being the only candidate against ethanol subsidies while Marco Rubio lost his home state of Florida while defending his sugar subsidies.

Now that we see this truth, it’s time to strike before everyone completely forgets. Subsidies are created to buy votes in local areas and they persist out of fear for losing votes. 2016 debunked the second part of the myth. That means we need to cut now.

The alt-right is a growing problem

Did the alt-right help Trump win? Absolutely. He brought out a slew of new voters in both the primaries and the general election, many of whom probably aren’t even aware that they embrace alt-right concepts.

Here’s the thing, and I say this knowing that it will be an unpopular statement to some who read this. The alt-right helped Trump, but they are not a positive influence on the GOP or American politics. The surface-level appeal that keeps them going makes their ranks easily manipulated away from conservative principles. The term “alt-right” is unfortunate because in many ways they have far-left views intermingled with the views that are considered far-right. This makes for a dangerous combination for any party that wants to address issues beyond the emotional surface.

2016 was a good year for Republicans and a potentially good year for conservatives. There’s hope, but let’s make certain that hope doesn’t turn into the same complacency that doomed the Democrats. If we don’t, we could be looking at quick reversals in 2018 and 2020.

Over the last few years, we’ve seen a dramatic shift in the way the abortion debate has been framed by the left through their mainstream media proxies. What was once a battle about “choice” has now been retooled to be about “reproductive rights.” This is going to become louder once Ohio Governor John Kasich decides which abortion ban he signs, which will likely happen this week.

Personally, I’d like to see him sign the Heartbeat Bill, but as long as he signs one of them, the conversation will reignite around the concept of reproductive rights. This is usually frowned upon by conservatives as it touches on a point that we hold dear: personal liberties. We don’t like that the left is using one of our tools against us. Rather than attempting to shift the conversation away from this talking point, we should embrace it.

It has become the most powerful weapon used by the pro-abortion crowd because the conservative perspectives surrounding personal liberties resonate with the majority, even Democrats (once you clear away the minutia they use to cloud the issue of freedoms). They are pulling at our political heartstrings when they make the claim that any attempts to take away a woman’s right to an abortion is an attack on her freedoms. For this reason, the pro-life movement has turned to other methods for fighting their battles: religion, post-abortion depression, touching stories from abortion survivors, and scientific technicalities are just some of the tools pro-lifers use to wage war on abortion.

We’ve allowed the left to co-opt our most powerful weapon and use it against us. This needs to be reversed. Abortion is absolutely about personal liberties. There is no better argument than protection of freedoms and our God-given rights when combating the plague of abortion. All we need to do is focus on the other side of the coin. Just as pro-abortion groups tout the individual liberties of pregnant women by focusing on reproductive rights, pro-lifers should engage in the same way by hammering the rights of the preborn.

Yes, babies have rights, too. The question of when the baby gets rights is the only thing in question. The left will tell us that up to a certain point, a preborn baby is simply a conglomeration of cells that are actually still part of the woman, so their existence falls under the jurisdiction of her individual rights. Just as she can choose to have her tonsils removed, the left wants us to believe she has the right to have the unwanted grouping of cells in her uterus removed.

Science is on our side. The reason the Heartbeat Bill has its name is not symbolic. The bill bans abortions once a heartbeat can be detected by the doctor. This happens around the six-week point following conception. It may be hard to convince people on the fence that the standard ban on abortions held by most states of 24-weeks needs to be brought up to the six-week mark, but knowing that the preborn baby’s heart is already beating at that point is a powerful argument for life.

When does a preborn baby acquire the rights of every American to be allowed to live? For some of us, the answer is at conception. For others, it’s at a certain point between conception and birth. The key for this battle is to understand that if Americans are made aware of the science behind reproduction, the left’s narrative of “reproductive rights” can be quickly shifted in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans to be about a preborn baby’s right to live.

The left is fighting a losing battle if we take the battle to them instead of tiptoeing around the other strategies that we’ve created. Modern science allows us to get up close and personal with preborn babies. Share those videos. Share the stories of how preborn babies feel pain, dream dreams, and experience emotions in ways very similar to how they act once they’re born. There’s a reason that the left is so against simple measures such as the burial of aborted fetuses. Their narrative falls apart once a preborn human is humanized in the eyes of the masses.

With the assumption that pro-life judges are about to fill the benches of courts around the country, including the current and upcoming open Supreme Court seats, the pro-life movement has never had a better opportunity to move the needle. We can save millions of babies who haven’t even been conceived yet. To do this, we need to stop renouncing our best weapon and take it back from the left. Personal liberties resonate. We simply need to remind people that preborn babies deserve liberties as well.

On Friday I attended the Carenet Dinner in Hollis NH.

For those not familiar with it, Carenet is a protestant ministry for pregnant woman, women removing from abortion and men and women learning how to be parents.

I spoke to Linda Barrie one of the officials about their work

And to their keynote speaker Pastor Keith Ferrin from Seattle

I shared a table with Mike Rogers and Steve MacDonald of Granite Grok who spoke to me after the event about both Carenet and the Election:

As Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for life said there is plenty of room for all of us in the pro-life movement, I’m pleased to see Carenet do their part.

President Obama and many on the left celebrated today as the 100th anniversary of Planned Parenthood. They used catchy hashtags like #100YearsStrong to promote the idea that this “healthcare” company has been a positive force in America for the last century. Meanwhile, seven million babies have been murdered by them.

Is that a harsh way to put it? Yes. Does it make some people, even many pro-lifers, cringe when conservatives call it murder? Yes. It should. We should all be cringing. We should feel uncomfortable with abortion. Some would argue that this is a political issue and attacking it on an emotional level doesn’t help the pro-life cause. I offer the counterargument that tackling the issue of abortion on any level other than emotional is a losing battle. Death is emotional. When we take away the emotion by making it purely political, scientific, or technical, we are declawing ourselves before the battle can be fought.

We need our claws. We need it to sting. We need supporters of abortion to face the reality that by embracing choice over life, they are placing a higher value on one person’s existence over another’s.

It was mentioned today that “The battle must be won for the hearts and minds of the people in America and around the world.” This is true on multiple levels. It’s the reason that Planned Parenthood and its supporters use technical terms like “reproductive rights” and “fetal tissues” instead of “abortion” and “babies.” The goal of their narrative is to desensitize us to the realities of abortion. They cannot win the emotional battle, so they make it political. They make it scientific. They make it technical. Unfortunately, many in the pro-life movement oblige by laying down our most powerful weapon, emotion, before we step into battle.

By no means am I calling for us to stop fighting with our votes, in court, and elsewhere on the political front. However, if those are the only arenas where we’re willing to fight, we are likely going to lose. Our disadvantage is that it’s 2016 and the people are so distracted by the Kardashians and Pokemon Go that they don’t allow themselves to be easily burdened by emotional realities in politics and religion. Our advantage is that it’s 2016, which means we have the technology to spread the message to those who are willing to hear. We can show them what a partial birth abortion really entails. We can share videos and images of babies in the womb, demonstrating that these are not just groups of fetal tissues. They are human beings, albeit very small ones. They are alive.

Here’s an example of why this is true:

We cannot win this battle with politics alone. Regardless of the law, the real battle must be fought from an emotional level. Some people are willing to have or support abortions because they are not convinced that they are promoting the end of someone’s life. If we turn the battle there rather than simply pushing for laws and promoting technicalities in court, we have a chance of winning battles. It’s important to remember that the battles are one life at a time. One abortion prevented is a life saved.

“I only know this is wrong.”

– Guinan
Star Trek: The Next Generation
“Yesterday’s Enterprise”

I’m a sucker for time-travel stories. Whether it’s Harry Potter, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Back to the Future, Stephen King’s 11/22/63 or anything else, a good story about the hero traveling back in time and affecting (or restoring) “the timeline” is one of my favorite diversions. If the plot is clever and resolves itself well, I’m even willing to put up with hokey dialog and two-dimensional characters. I just love it when a story, which can easily open itself to paradox, cliché and deus ex machina anti-climax, manages to apply self-consistent logic and arrive at an exciting, thought-provoking and satisfying ending.

Of course, we know that time travel is impossible. You can’t go back in time and murder your grandfather, there are no alternate universes and there is no grand government conspiracy hiding an actual time travel device so we just think it’s impossible. But that doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to change the past, at least not if you’re a progressive, or whatever term the left chooses to apply to itself. The only hard part is getting yourself into a position to do it, such as becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

If you’re like me, and believe that words have meanings and expect that logical self-consistency is essential for any set of laws to make sense, then you would agree that once a law is passed it’s meaning should remain constant until such time as the legislature chooses to amend or repeal the law. That’s a pretty basic feature of any “government of laws, not of men.” The problem, as the left sees it, is that our Constitution was set up to make it hard to change the law, but we conservatives see this as a feature, not a bug.

The way the Constitution says you change a law is to advocate for the change and convince the legislature to pass the amendment, get it approved by the other house and have the president sign it into law. But that can be difficult since (ideally) each legislator is beholden to a constituency (those pesky “we the people” again), so they have to convince them that it’s a good idea too. If they can’t, then they may get voted out in the next election. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work. What if there were an easier way?

Let’s suppose that time travel were actually possible. Our legislative crusader could go back in time, maybe to the Constitutional Convention, and actually advocate to change the Constitution. Maybe convince James Madison that the first amendment should include that phrase “Congress shall make no law limiting the ability of a mother to kill her unborn child at any time during her pregnancy.” Then the Supreme Court never would have had to wrestle with the abortion question in Roe v. Wade.

Instead, the left has discovered that Legislative Time Travel is much easier. All they have to do is decide what policy they want to enact and then declare that the meaning of the appropriate legislation is actually different from what everyone thought it was originally, and – surprise! – it actually means just what it needs to mean to enact whatever policy they want. They did it with abortion, they did it with gay “marriage” and now they’re doing it with “transgenderism.” Instead of going back in time and convincing Madison, all they have to say is “Madison really meant whatever I wish he’d meant.”

And the Obama administration doesn’t even have to go back that far. By reinterpreting Title IX to include the nebulous term “gender identity” they have the chutzpah to tell legislators, many of whom are still around, that the law they passed to prohibit discrimination based on sex now means something completely different.

So now we find ourselves in an alternate reality where laws are no longer logically self-consistent, since “gender identity” is completely subjective and this made-up interpretation of plainly written law is now in direct contradiction of the First Amendment in forcing churches and religious organizations and employers to go against the practice of their faith (i.e. the free exercise of their religion) to accommodate what the American College of Pediatricians has classified as a psychological disorder.

Since we don’t believe in Legislative Time Travel, we need representatives who will follow the Constitution and not just make things up as they go along. Since Clinton has pledged to be Obama’s third term, we can expect more of the same if she is elected. It says a lot about how far left Clinton and the democrats have become that Donald Trump is actually the candidate who is more likely to restore our timeline to one that make sense.

Not long after Roe v. Wade federalized abortion policy, Members of Congress led by Henry Hyde moved to prevent federal funds from being used for abortions. The Hyde Amendment was finally added to the Medicaid program as a rider to the Health and Human Services budget on September 30, 1976. The rider has been added in every federal budget cycle since then. The Hyde Amendment restricts – but does not altogether prevent – federal taxpayer funding of abortion.

Abortion providers have tried to torpedo the Hyde Amendment since the day it was proposed. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is a determined foe of Hyde. Slate quotes her as saying that it “mak[es] it harder for low-income women to exercise their full rights.” Clinton and candidates in step with her are prepared to coerce all taxpayers into subsidizing abortion.

Donald Trump is reportedly willing to support the Hyde Amendment, according to Marjorie Dannenfelser, chairwoman of Trump’s pro-life coalition. “Not only has Mr. Trump doubled down on his three existing commitments to the pro-life movement, he has gone a step further in pledging to protect the Hyde Amendment and the conscience rights of millions of pro-life taxpayers.”

Absent a presidential veto, it’s the Members of Congress who determine whether the Hyde Amendment goes into the budget. A presidential candidate’s coattails will have something to do with the makeup of Congress, though, so the views of the presidential candidates matter.

As the Hyde Amendment turns 40, and acting independently of any campaign or party, a diverse group of pro-life Americans led by Secular Pro-Life has launched the #HelloHyde campaign. #HelloHyde not only marks the anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, but also celebrates the lives of children born under Medicaid since the amendment was first used. The #HelloHyde campaigners want the Hyde Amendment to be not only protected but broadened.

More power to them. From the campaign’s web site:

Medicaid should cover birth, not death….

The Hyde Amendment’s life-saving impact is hard to overstate. Both supporters and opponents agree that the Hyde Amendment has prevented over a million abortions. The disagreement, sad to say, is over whether that’s a good thing.

#HelloHyde estimates that of the people born through the Medicaid program since the Hyde Amendment was enacted (“Medicaid kids”), 1 in 9 would have died in the absence of Hyde Amendment protection. That estimate comes from a recently released report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which found that the Hyde Amendment has saved 2.13 million lives.

The #HelloHyde web site includes photos of  some of the Medicaid kids. I hope opponents of the Hyde Amendment see those photos, which might provoke some thought about which of those kids ought to have been killed at public expense.

 

Mother Teresa will be canonized on September 4, giving formal acknowledgment of the obvious: she led a life of heroic virtue in service to others. She’s worth emulating. Her work took her around the world, and she spent time with all kinds of world leaders. In 1994, she was the main speaker at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. President and Mrs. Clinton were there. Mother Teresa’s words moved nearly everyone in the room to give her a standing ovation at one point. Remaining seated were the Clintons, who couldn’t quite work up the same enthusiasm for what they were hearing.

One wonders what will go through Hillary Clinton’s head as the canonization nudges her off the “trending” list for an hour or so. Will the event rate a remark from the presidential candidate?

Mother Teresa started out mildly enough at the prayer breakfast, with the prayer of St. Francis. “Make me an instrument of your peace…” Then she spoke about human dignity, service to the poor, aid to the dying, support for families. Who could object? But then she just had to get to the topic everyone knew she would, however much it might make her listeners squirm.

“…I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child…I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting abortion by adoption – by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: ‘Please don’t destroy the child; we will take the child.’ So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: ‘Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child.’ And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child – but I never give a child to a couple who have done something not to have a child. Jesus said. ‘Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me.’ By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus but, by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus.” [Find the full transcript at priestsforlife.org.]

Boom. That’s when the ovation began. It went on without Hillary Clinton’s participation. That much made the evening news.

Last January, Sean Fitzpatrick writing at Crisis magazine offered a postscript about the encounter between Mother Teresa and the First Lady.

“The address concluded, Mrs. Clinton noted the pointed nature of the nun’s words. ‘Mother Teresa was unerringly direct,’ the First Lady recounted. ‘She disagreed with my views on a woman’s right to choose and told me so.’ Tell her so she did; but though she was direct in her disagreement, she also offered something that Mrs. Clinton could applaud. Although Hillary Clinton was, and remains, a supporter of legalized abortion, she agreed with Mother Teresa that adoption was a preferable alternative. Speaking to her afterwards, Mother Teresa told Mrs. Clinton of her desire to continue her mission to find homes and families for orphaned, abandoned, and unwanted children by founding an adoption center in Washington, DC. She invited the First Lady to assist her in this endeavor, and brought Mrs. Clinton to India with her to witness her work firsthand.

“Mother Teresa’s motions were not wasted. When Hillary Clinton returned to Washington, she took up Mother Teresa’s request with a will. Keeping in contact with the saint who called her regularly to receive updates on her ‘center for babies,’ Hillary Clinton did the necessary legwork and succeeded in opening The Mother Teresa Home for Infant Children in 1995 in an affluent section of Washington, DC. Mother Teresa joined her for the opening, and two years later passed into the arms of her Lord. But she left a bright mark on the career of Hillary Clinton, who saw something remarkable in the tiny nun, and chose to do her bidding to help save lives. Mother Teresa inspired Mrs. Clinton to do a truly good work in spite of her dedicated promotion of Planned Parenthood’s agenda for ‘safe and legal’ abortions.

The center was quietly and unfortunately closed in 2002.”

The canonization will give Hillary Clinton an opportunity to point out Mother Teresa’s opposition to abortion, which she can contrast with her own reproductive-rights song and dance. Or, Hillary Clinton can take the high road, recall the work she and Mother Teresa did together, and say something like “let’s be more like her.”

Of course, if she doesn’t want to see more people like Mother Teresa, she could say that, too.

Ellen Kolb writes about the life issues at LeavenForTheLoaf.com. When she’s not writing, she’s hiking in New Hampshire. See her earlier posts for DaTechGuyBlog: Ethics and PP’s Campaign Cash, Putting a Know-Nothing in His Place, Ads Say the Darnedest Things, Worried About the Court? Then Worry About the Senate, and Sunday Best. 

A note to readers: This is my last pitch as one of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Prospects. DTG will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent Tryouts by hits-per-post and hits to DaTipJar. If you hit DaTipJar after reading one of my posts, please mention my name so Da Boss knows I’m earning my keep – and thank you! (Look for a tip jar link at the right side of the page if it’s not visible below.)




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



and if you want to fight the MSM company store join the Have Fedora Will Travel pledge drive to send me to cover Donald Trump on the road

trump_pointing
This guy wants you to stop whining

I have a concealed carry permit.  I don’t brag about it or bring it up in conversation.  I don’t tell people when I’m carrying a weapon.  I just follow the laws and blend in, and I find most permit holders do the same.

In Texas, that apparently isn’t good enough, as hundreds of people found it appropriate to wear dildos to class.  Concealed carry folks wanted to carry in the classroom to protect students and faculty from mass shooters.  I’m not entirely certain the purpose behind open carrying dildos.

PM9This will protect you from a mass shooter. A dildo…not so much.

But it’s not just gun rights.  Heaven help you if you express conservative views.  At my college, I spoke out against affirmative action, something that the Supreme Court eventually decided was wrong.  No matter.  Rather than a civil discussion, I was harassed.  At the same college, it was OK to openly harass members showing pictures of aborted babies, but harassing someone defending abortion was an attack on women’s rights (despite statistics that many women don’t support abortion).

gallupabortion
Looks like a heck of an even split, although you wouldn’t guess that from news coverage

After enduring that harassment, I’m perfectly OK with liberal heads exploding over Donald Trump.  I don’t agree with all his policies, but he brings a smile to my face when liberals gasp over how crass and rude he can be.  Newsflash: it’s the same rude and crass behavior that you dished out to me and others over the last 15 years that we quietly absorbed.  Stop whining when the quiet kid you picked on suddenly finds a bigger bully.


The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.


NG36B is a military blogger who regularly blogs at The Navy’s Grade 36 Bureaucrat. If you love your kids and America, you should buy his Kindle book about the Navy and read it to them every night.

And hit Da Tip Jar and mention him so that he can win Da Tech Guys competition!


If you like what you see here please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level