The urgency of national news sometimes casts local politics into the shade. Watch out for that. I spent the last election season preaching “downballot” to anyone who would listen. I have no regrets, in view of some of the issues coming up in my area at the state and local levels that are sure to be reflected in federal policy a few years down the road. Furthermore, the candidates succeeding locally are apt to look to higher office sooner or later.

This came to mind as my Facebook feed kicked up a new ad, inviting me to “like” a Model Citizen’s new page. My internal alarms went off. This MC ran last cycle for mayor of the largest city in the state, and lost by a whisker. She’s back for another crack at it.

Ms. Model Citizen was endorsed last time around by EMILY’s List, which was established for exactly one reason: to elect pro-abortion women. Ms. MC downplayed that in her last campaign. The EMILY’s List material promoting her, knowing that the unrestricted-abortion line wouldn’t play well in the city, emphasized her aldermanic experience. I’m betting on the same game plan this time.

And when that happens, it’ll be last time all over again: ask any ten likely voters in that city if they’d support a pro-abortion candidate for mayor, and most would say no. Ask them if they’ve ever heard of EMILY’s List, and nine of them would go “huh?” But ask them if they’d support the alderman from ward X, and it’s a different story.

The last time the mayor of the largest city in the state ran for higher office, he wound up in Congress. Local experience and name recognition counted heavily.

It’s not just the prospect of upward mobility that gives me pause; it’s the more immediate effect on local policy. Who determines local school policies, as least as far the feds allow? Who lends credibility to certain groups by marching or volunteering with them? Who names volunteers to local committees? Who determines the priorities in municipal budgets?

Yup: the locals. While Sean Spicer is briefing reporters about developments in Washington, there’s plenty going on in your own town, without much publicity.

Watch those candidates, whenever your local elections may be. Watch those campaign finance reports. Shine a light on stealth efforts, like EMILY’s List mailings that fail to mention abortion advocacy. Care now, because you can be sure there are interest groups who would be happy for you to leave the caring to them.

Ellen Kolb blogs about New Hampshire life-issue policy at Leaven for the Loaf and looks farther afield in ellenkolb.com

Strike a blow for independent journalism by subscribing to Da Blog!

if you like what you see from our full time twice a week writers like JD Rucker (Thursday Afternoons and Sunday Evenings) Fausta Rodriguez Wertz (Wednesday and Friday Afternoons) Baldilocks (Tuesday and Saturday Evenings) Our Weekly Writers like Zilla of the Resistance (Friday Evenings) RH (NG36B) Saturday Afternoon , John (Marathon Pundit) Ruberry (Sunday afternoons) Pat Austin (Monday Afternoons) and Christopher Harper (Tuesday Afternoons) Our part Time Writers Jerry Wilson (Most Thursdays), Michigan Mick (Twice a month on Mondays), Pastor Kelly (occasional Fridays), and our monthly/substitute writes Ellen Kolb, Tech Knight and Jon Fournier (Wednesday evenings) then please consider subscribing to help me pay them.


Choose a Subscription level



Your subscription pays the writes (except the two who won’t take pay) and helps me toward my goal of not just posting daily but doing this full time again. You will also get our podcasts directed mailed to you ahead of others.

Or If you want to help with the incidental bills (like the massive hospital bills coming or the cost of the used car I need) but don’t want a monthly commitment please consider hitting daTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

And if you aren’t inclined or in a position to kick in financial

News comes of the passing of Norma McCorvey. She’ll go down in American history as “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade fame, the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case that has cost more than fifty million lives so far.

Her decision to become pro-life, that profound change of mind and heart, might not make it into the history books, even as a footnote. I won’t forget it, though. Neither should you.

Last year, during the first Pro-Life Women’s Conference in Dallas, I went to Mass at downtown’s beautiful Chapel of St. Jude. The priest saying Mass knew McCorvey from the days when she sought instruction in the Catholic faith. He spoke of her with fond respect, but he spoke only briefly: “Leave her alone. She’s been too much used.”

Those words struck me. Had McCorvey been at that Mass, I would have wanted to run up and thank her for witnessing for life in defiance of the Court case bearing her pseudonym. The priest’s remark made me consider that Norma McCorvey probably didn’t need fans as much as she needed friends. I hope she had those friendships, refuges in a world of microphones and cameras and attorneys.

Attorneys who wanted to loosen abortion laws used her in the early 1970s. The attorneys succeeded, probably beyond their wildest dreams. They didn’t have much use for McCorvey after that.

McCorvey never had the abortion that her case was about. It takes awhile for court cases to make it to the Supreme Court, and by the time January 1973 rolled around, McCorvey had given birth and placed her child for adoption.

In 1989, the Pittsburgh Press included some quotations from McCorvey in its coverage of yet another pending Supreme Court decision on abortion. “Asked what she would do when she met [her adopted] child, Ms. McCorvey replied, ‘I would just say, “Hello, I’m your mama,” and give a hug.'”

Remember her kindly, and pray for the repose of her soul. I don’t think she had much repose in this life. She did have a kind of courage, though, that gave her the energy to speak out long after she could have been forgiven for seeking seclusion.

Perhaps the best way to memorialize her is not with a monument or a plaque on some wall, but with action. She recommended something specific.

“…it doesn’t make any difference what religion you are, or how young you are or how old you are, I think if they get up and go to these abortion mills, and stand there – and they don’t have to do anything, they can just stand there and pray, I think that would make a lot of difference. We have to be seen in numbers.”

Ellen writes about New Hampshire politics and the life issues at Leaven for the Loaf. You can keep independent journalists like her on the job by hitting up Da Tip Jar. Many thanks!

 

Abortion’s legal. So is declining to put it on the public dime. That’s been the uneasy truce for many years between abortion providers (and promoters) and American taxpayers. Uneasy, and shaky: even since 1976 with the Hyde Amendment, children conceived through violence have always been at risk of abortion at public expense.

This week,  the U.S. House has taken a step toward making the Hyde Amendment permanent, and President Trump has reinstated the Mexico City policy. The Hyde Amendment refers to abortion-funding limitations in the domestic Health and Human Services budget, which must be renewed each budget cycle. The Mexico City policy (named for the location of the 1984 U.N. conference where the policy was first adopted) prevents U.S. money sent to the United Nations Population Fund from being used for abortion activity, as distinct from family planning.

The Mexico City policy has been in effect under every Republican president since Reagan. It was revoked by Democrats Clinton and Obama. For a generation, it has been an indicator of one of the differences between the two major parties: Democrats want public money to be available for abortion in all circumstances. Republicans don’t.

There are resisters to the Hyde and Mexico City provisions, of course, who have dusted off the moniker “global gag rule” to describe the Mexico City policy . Let the hashtagging begin. You’re not only trying to keep people from doing abortions, but even talking to women about abortion, say the hashtaggers. No, we’re just trying to keep the hands of abortion providers out of the pockets of people who recognize that abortion terminates human life.

A woman is free to choose abortion. Are you and I free to refuse to pay for it? The opponents of Hyde and Mexico City say no. They defend choice for the abortion-minded woman, but not for the pro-life taxpayer.

The “gag rule” argument is one of two used by coerced-funding fans. The other is the claim that abortion is health care and must be treated as such. Both arguments get more traction every time a politician parrots them without dispute.

Attorney Cathleen Cleaver, speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2001, noted that any “gag” on abortion providers under the Mexico City policy is self-imposed.

…the policy forces nothing: Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) may choose to apply for U.S. tax funds, and to be eligible, they must refrain from abortion activity. On the other hand, NGOs may choose to do abortions or to lobby foreign nations to change their laws which restrict abortion, and if they choose that path they render themselves ineligible for U.S. money. As we saw the last time the policy was in place [under President Reagan], only two out of hundreds of organizations elected to forfeit the U.S. money for which they were otherwise eligible. But it was and will be entirely their choice.

Hyde has been a legislative action. Mexico City has been an executive action. The judiciary weighed in on this a long time ago, coming down on the side of people who choose not to fund abortion, upholding the Hyde Amendment in Harris v. McRae (1980). Yet public funding of abortion activity is still an open question: Hyde must be proposed anew every two years, use of the Mexico City policy depends on the personal preferences of a president, and what today’s Supreme Court might do if faced with a funding case is anyone’s guess.

This week’s actions by President Trump and the House are most welcome. They may prove to be only passing victories, though, unless the people who want nothing to do with the abortion industry become as noisy and persistent as the people determined to fund the industry publicly.

By the way, I heard Cecile Richards crowing after the election that the advent of Trump has led to a huge increase in donations to Planned Parenthood. How many of those donations were designated for political use rather than clinical care? How much public funding could be offset by these donations, if Planned Parenthood so chose? Are we going to see those figures anytime during this year’s funding debate?

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.

bl sacCome Pray on the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

All Night Eucharistic Pro-Life Vigil

Thursday January 21 (3 pm)  to

Friday January 22 (5 am)

Holy Mass at 1 am

Celebrant Fr. Maurice Ashley Agbaw-Ebai

St. Joseph Parish

118 High St. (Rt. 60)

Medford, MA 02155

Contact (781) 391-1396 or adoration24sj@comcast.net

Prayers for Life — Eucharistic Adoration Team – Legion of Mary

I speak to Fr Frank Pavone of Priests for Life at the Catholic Marketing Trade Show

The Priests for Life page is here His facebook page is here, his twitter page is here His youtube page is here

The latest in our series of posts that will not surprise any person who has been paying attention.

Today’s installment comes a post from Granite Grok & a tweet from Boston Bridget on the Elections in NH.

While the GOP was winning Governorships in Illinois, Maryland and even Massachusetts and Republican Senate Candidates were winning every senate seat in sight at the very same time Maggie Hassan was beating Walt Havenstein holding the Governorship and Scott Brown was losing to Jeanne Shaheen.

Mind you they managed to do this at the same time that Republican increased their majority in the state Senate and won the House in the state going from 40 seats down to 70 seats up

So How did Havenstein manage to lose when the GOP was winning statewide? Granite Grok provides a clue

I can now tell the story – a meeting was set up, like back in 2010 with the leaders of the L&F wing of the Party with Papa Smurf (John Sununu Sr), for Havenstein. Walt arrived – and only 4 people were there instead of the scores that had been invited. Each and every one of them, including me, said “No apology, no support. We will not be used as cover; we will not be there”. It is my understanding that Havenstein was PISSED – he was the Nominee so how DARE he not get that support and stomped out redfaced when told the reasons. He assumed that votes would be there – you know what “assumed” means. A lack of Consistency.

 

Oddly it appears that if you use sexual slurs to describe your base and refuse to apologize said people choose not to show up and vote for you.

Unlike Haverstein Brown didn’t directly insult his voters but he did choose to emphasize positions his base hated:

Brown especially with his absolutely pandering in on-bended-knee-running to Shaheen’s Left on being “I’m more Pro-Choice than her!!!!” told another large group of normally Conservative Republicans “I don’t need you at ALL” – that would be the large Pro-Life voters to whom this issue IS their top issue if not their SINGLE issue when voting.

 

Mind you there were pragmatic people who tried for him. Boston Bridget is as pro-life as they come yet there wasn’t a person who worked harder to try and elect him north of the border but that didn’t move the faithful:

The Groksters come to a conclusion:

In each of these candidates, not maintaining a Consistency with their base cost them. It should show that trying to replace that base with another, and being very untransparent about it, failed to create a Trust and you both lost votes.

 

Yeah but a lot of high paid GOP consultant said otherwise, and we all know they know a whole lot more than a blogger in a Fedora and scarf.

**************************************************************

There are less than 60 days to the year and to say things are tight financially around here is to say the Titanic had a bit of a leak but there isn’t a lot of money in telling GOP candidates things as they are rather than what they and the establishment want them to hear.

Olimometer 2.52

If you think this blog’s coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting DaTipJar below

If course if you can do both, I’m  fine with that too.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup of  John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

Lindaby Linda Szugyi

Today’s liberals want kids to be thoroughly educated about sex, and as soon as possible.  After all, education is not the enemy.  Ignorance is.

There is some truth to that, of course.  If teenagers learn only that you shouldn’t do it, period! and yet they choose to do it anyway, they might worsen their situation through ignorance.  It wasn’t sexual intercourse; it was just oral! says the young woman who still manages to get an STD.

This truth is what makes “sex ed” such a sticky wicket.

It’s telling, though, how the left’s interest in education ends once the sex act results in pregnancy.  When the stick turns blue, the curiosity is gone.  Similar to the way in which a Christian might be claimed to over-emphasize abstinence, the pro-choice crowd pushes a glossed-over, incomplete picture that over-emphasizes their preferred choice: A baby is punishment.  It’s a myth that women regret abortionAbortion is a common female experience.  Don’t worry, abortion carries no moral implications.

Sure, there is some lip service to the idea that abortion is an important decision.  The key to exposing the pro-choice desire for women to remain ignorant about what’s really going on inside them is not in what they say, however.  The key is found in their fervent adherence to this commandment: Thou Shalt Not Mention What Shall Not Be Mentioned.

The pro-choice crowd follows this commandment faithfully.  As a result, abortion must be phrased in abstract terms.  It’s about choice!  It’s reproductive freedom!  “Choice” is most certainly not about a baby.  Nor a fetus, nor even an embryo.  It is a pregnancy, and pregnancies can be ended, without tough moral dilemmas.

The pro-choice reliance on ignorance is in full effect when they protest laws that require the abortionist to show the ultrasound to the mother before an abortion is performed.  It’s rape!  Rape I tell you!  Nevermind the fact that the ultrasound is a routine part of the abortion procedure, regardless of whether the mother actually gets the opportunity to see it.

Their reliance on ignorance is also seen in the way the media studiously avoids covering one of the most horrific serial killers in history:  Kermit Gosnell.

empty seats reserved for media at Gosnell trial
This Criminal Trial Is Not Worthy Of News Coverage

The lovely Irish duo who brought us the documentaries Not Evil Just Wrong and FrackNation want to rectify this glaring omission.  They have started a very ambitious crowd-sourcing effort to make a movie about Kermit Gosnell and his crimes.

The pro-choice crowd could not possibly talk about the Kermit Gosnell case without getting uncomfortably close to the physical reality of “ending a pregnancy.”  Gosnell’s crimes viscerally demonstrate how little difference there is between killing a baby then removing it, and removing a baby then killing it.  Facts have an annoying way of piercing right through the pro-choice veil of age/stage distinctions.

One last thing.  Before I recommend pitching in to the IndieGoGo fundraising effort for the Gosnell movie, I have to take care of my own house’s finances.  Da Tech Guy has been very kind and dedicated in adding voices like mine to his blog.  He believes in the conservative message, not just as truth but as a financially viable journalism career.

I share his belief.  Lately, however, conservative journalism has not brought in the revenue it warrants.  If you are a Tech Guy reader but not a subscriber, please consider the idea of putting your money where your eyes are.  Subscribe today.

If you are already a Tech Guy subscriber, and you have just one extra dollar to spare, please support the Gosnell movie project.  They have a lot of money to raise in a very short time.

This is the part of the post where I tell you more about myself.  I love to write and hate to speak, so you’ll be unlikely to catch me on Da Tech Guy’s radio program, barring a political situation that affects me personally.  Sometimes I post at my own blog site, too.  If you enjoy my writing, subscribe to Da Tech Guy and support Da Magnificent Seven.  Thanks!

*****************************************

Olimometer 2.52

The Mortgage is due today and after some movement this morning I’m still $678 short.

I was not in Vegas so Sheldon Adelson is unlikely to be hitting DaTipJar to save the day.

Will you?

 

If 61 of you hit Subscribe at $20 a month subscribers this site will be able to cover its bills for a full year and things will be a lot more like Alito and Kagan around here than Kennedy & Roberts reliable..


 

it’s this:

A Windsor, Ont. couple’s fight to bring their gravely ill baby home to die ended in bitter tears Thursday when a Superior Court judge dismissed their appeal to stop doctors from removing the infant’s breathing tube at the hospital.

The father and relatives of one-year-old Joseph Maraachli wept outside a London courthouse after an emotional Justice Helen Rady upheld the earlier decision of an independent provincial tribunal forcing the baby’s parents to comply with doctors’ orders.

With all of their legal avenues exhausted, the family will have to say goodbye to Joseph Monday morning — on Family Day — when his breathing tube will be removed.

Welcome to the future, it is here.