abortion

As excerpted on FOX Nation:

While we were watching Kagan's confirmation last week, an amendent sponsored by Senator Ronald "Blago-pal" Burris (D-Ill.) and spawned by the Senate Armed Services Committee's 15-12 vote in late May, will allow abortion procedures in clinics or hospitals on military installations worldwide.  The amendment to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act passed the Senate along a partyline vote, with the exception of Ben "Cornhusker Kickback" Nelson. 

The Washington Times accurately calls it a "ruse" to "accomplish radical social change - to mainstream abortion, to press the government into providing it on a widespread scale so that it becomes respectable and ordinary":

In late May, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved an 11th-hour amendment by Democratic Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois to overturn the long-standing restrictions on abortion in military hospitals during the committee's work on the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act and after protracted debate on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Burris amendment passed on a party-line vote with one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voting no. While Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings directed attention away from the Defense authorization bill, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan has called for this issue to be dealt with as soon as possible after the Senate returns from August recess.

Under current law, Department of Defense resources may be used for emergency abortions to save the mother's life and in cases of rape or incest, restrictions first added to the U.S. Code in 1984 and 1996.

Elective abortions, on the other hand, have been disallowed in military hospitals for decades, with the exception of a brief period when President Clinton reversed the policy in January 1993, only to have Congress vote to restore it in 1995. Under current law, military women are free to leave the base and make their own private arrangements for an elective abortion.

Mr. Burris' amendment would overturn current law so that elective abortions are performed in U.S. military clinics and hospitals by military personnel, putting the armed forces in competition with Planned Parenthood as the nation's largest abortion provider.

Critics of the current law say their biggest concern is sexual assault in the military, but this is highly disingenuous, as current law provides a specific exception allowing the use of military facilities to abort a child conceived in rape.

They also cite Iraq and Afghanistan and complain that abortion laws in those countries limit off-base abortion options. But this, too, is meant to deceive. If this were the real concern of Mr. Burris and his allies, he could have crafted his measure to address it. Instead, he took a bludgeon to current law across the board so that the greatest impact would be felt right here on U.S. soil, where abortion is virtually unlimited throughout pregnancy and 1.2 million children are aborted every year.

Read the rest.

This just doubly reveals the duplicitous nature of President Obama's "no fed funding for abortions" Executive Order to get healthcare passed.

Planned Parenthood, of course, supports the amendment, saying:

The vote repealing this discriminatory and dangerous ban is the first step..

This is discrimination against unplanned persons.

I'd like to know how many servicewomen have been because abortion procedures were not readily accessible to them, especially when President Obama already made it a federal requirement for all military bases to carry Plan B, the morning after pill  back in February of this year, even though bases have always had the option to carry the abortive drug.

Our taxpayer dollars at work.

Never trust anything coming out of Chicago.

Crossposted.

Maybe this has been pointed out before, but since the Kagan hearings naturally bring Roe v Wade to the forefront again let me point out how the equal protection clause would not in fact make for a stable basis upon which Row could rest safe (contra Ginsburg among others).

What is being protected against?  Is it simply the state of being pregnant which would apply only to women?  No, in fact it is the future that is being protected against (future expenses and responsibilities) not the present --there is no substantial difference between a woman who is 8 weeks pregnant and one who is not pregnant at all.  So, if the equal protection clause becomes the basis for the constitutional right to an abortion then men also would be entitled to similar protection from future responsibilities.  In other words, if abortion is a constitutional right to protect against unwanted pregnancies then men too would need to equally be able to disown any future responsibilities towards an unborn fetus and that decision like abortion would have to be available and changeable up to the moment of birth.   Call it the male abortion.   A man would have the right to suddenly and even at the last moment abandon any responsibility for what the fetus may become (ie a legally recognized person by present norms) by means of a legal procedure of disownment just as the woman can in effect do the same through a medical procedure of disownment at any time during the pregnancy.

Would you find such an arrangement sickening?  A man acting in such a manner?  That's good, it is sickening.  It is completely sickening.  And you should find it so because such an act would fly in the face of everything good that we could possibly associate with a man.  Not that male-kind is good, but if he has such legal characteristics he is wholly bad and vile.  Any society that allowed such laws and rights would be properly doomed to a bad end.  I personally would rejoice at the news of a bad end to any society that adopted such a law to protect its worthless "men."  But that too, the ability to render any future financial claims null and void prior to birth, for men and women alike, would need to become the law of the land as soon as abortion is predicated upon equal protection.

As a matter of fact, since there is equal protection guaranteed by the constitution right now and the guaranteed right to an abortion right now one might very well sue for this "right" for men to disown the burdens of paternity to be equally recognized right now.  

Actually, the fact that equalizing protection from unwanted pregnancy would render all social norms inoperative might be a very amusing way to force the court to reverse their indefensible decision on Row v Wade.  A reductio ad nauseum.  Taken to its logical conclusion after all Roe v Wade is a recipe for anarchy, the coarsening of civilization and endless human misery, as many not on the court have already seen.

[Edit]: A summary that exposes deeper ramifications:

New Scientist, a popular site with over 3 million unique visitors a month, initially responded to the nation's first abortion ban based on fetal pain in April 2010 with a simple "briefing" that wasn't widely repeated throughout the web. The article focused on discrediting Nebraska's 20-week abortion "Fetal Pain" restriction as "debatable."

Late last week, New Scientist followed up (HT Tabitha Hale's Amplify) with a direct refutation of the "pain claim" by citing a UK study that had been picked up by UPI and the AP for mass distribution.

This study has subsequently appeared in Time, CBS, The Money Times, MSNBC, and The Washington Post.

The headliner for these articles on the UK study generally state, " Fetus Can't Feel Pain  Before 24 Weeks." What these articles aren't telling the public is that this study advocates absolutely no regard for the pain (and therefore treatment of pain) of the unborn before or after 24 weeks - throughout the duration of the pregnancy, in fact - even for corrective procedures performed on fetuses in utero, something that is typically done here in the United States.

In the United States, we have our own studies concluding the opposite of the UK study. Methods of administering fetal anesthesia are widely discussed. This is the neonatal care standard we've practiced here in the United States as our technology advances. Neonatal care is a profession.

The widespread dissemination by the leftist mainstream media of this worthless UK study that can readily by discredited by medical studies and medical methodology accepted and practiced here in the US flies in the face of reason -- so much so, one can easily assume why abortionists would be interested in dismissing the pain of the littlest ones.

Back in April, Nebraska passed the first-ever "Fetal "Pain" abortion bill -- the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (LB 1103 ) -- to prevent the abortions of fetuses older than 20 weeks...

...by an overwhelming pro-life majority of 44 in favor and 5 against. The governor wasted no time in signing the measure into law.The law portends a fresh challenge and new look at the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, which led to the virtual legalization of abortion on demand. The Nebraska law applies a different standard – that of the unborn child’s ability to feel pain - for restricting abortion, while the high court used the standard of what they then considered to be point of fetal viability.

The Supreme Court considered fetuses "viable" beginning at 24 weeks when deciding Roe v. Wade, a mistake subsequent Justices would argue :

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion.

Nebraska's LB 1103 would be is the first state to regulate abortion according to the interests of the baby, not according to the interests of the mother:

"The Nebraska Legislature took a bold step today which should ratchet up the abortion debate across America," said Julie Schmit-Albin, Executive Director of Nebraska Right to Life in a statement.

"LB 1103 creates a case of first impression for the courts to acknowledge the capability to feel pain as a compelling state interest to protect those unborn babies from an excruciatingly painful death.”

The legislation bans abortions after 20 weeks of post-fertilization age except in two cases: first, when the pregnancy puts the mother in danger of death or “substantial and irreversible” physical harm to a major bodily function. The second exception allows an abortionist to perform an abortion in order to increase the probability of a live birth, or to preserve an unborn child’s life and health after a live birth.

This is important, because this law shifts the argument from the focus of time restrictions for would-be aborting mothers to the focus of the effects of the abortion itself on the fetus -- from the interests of the mother to the interests of the child. It forces society and the courts to admit the human-ness of the fetus and consider their suffering in a very real death.

To pass LB 1103, Nebraska cited the 2004 testimony of Kanwaljeet Anand from the University of Tennessee Health Science Center who testified on the federal partial birth abortion ban (subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007):

Kanwaljeet “Sunny” Anand, a pioneer in the study of fetal pain and now a professor at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, testified in 2004 on the federal partial birth abortion ban that after 20 weeks gestation, an unborn child would experience “severe and excruciating pain” from an abortion.

The pain may even be more acute than it would be for older humans, as some research indicates their immature nervous systems have not developed coping mechanisms that help the body better endure pain.

The law notes that unborn children have been observed to “seek to evade certain stimuli” in a manner that “would be interpreted as a response to pain.” Additionally, the bill says unborn children exhibit “hormonal stress responses to painful stimuli” that were reduced with the application of pain medication.

Abortion supporters want to call that evasion of "certain stimuli" a reflex action, similar to a knee-jerk responding to a tap on the knee or a finger removing itself from a heat source before being sensed by the brain.

When Nebraska passed LB 1103 in April of this year, New Scientist.com came out with a 2-page rebuttal to the law's fetal-pain argument. The site claimed that changing the terms of abortion is inappropriate because pain experienced by fetuses as young as 20 weeks is "far from certain." The site's most vile assertion is the lie that "before most abortions the fetal heart is stopped by a drug – usually digoxin or potassium chloride . The fetus cannot feel pain after that."

Using digoxin or potassium chloride on fetuses did not begin to be seriously considered by abortionists until after the Supreme Court upheld the federal partial birth abortion ban in 2007, and only then for the abortion of fetuses older than 20 weeks. Even so, an "interest" by those who slaughter the unborn does not constitute a widespread, enforceable mandate.

Potassium chloride is also the same chemical used for the lethal injection of prisoners, a practice New Scientist claims is inhumane .

So while New Scientist will consider the inhumane manner of death of a condemned person, this same publication will blatantly dismiss the pain of the unborn as merely "reflexive," "irrelevant," and even "completely irrational."

Last week, New Scientist reiterated their support for abortion by using a study by the UKs Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) to refute the opinion of American researchers. Keep in mind that the UK has full-blown socialized medicine , where abortion on demand has been rising for years and where medical procedures are pre-determined by committee according to "harms and benefits" -- or cost-effectiveness.

New Scientist cited a "working party report " that argues that since the pre-born fetuses exist in a state of unconsciousness, that consciousness is needed to experience pain. Therefore, pre-born fetuses, regardless of gestational age, "even after 24 weeks" would not benefit from pain medication.

"After 24 weeks there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks" .. "Such connections to the cortex are necessary for pain experience but not sufficient , as experience of external stimuli requires consciousness . ..[T]he fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero ... [ i]s in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness ... [that] suppress[es] higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. ..

[I]n the light of current evidence, the Working Party concluded that the use of analgesia provided no clear benefit to the fetus. ... [F]etal analgesia should not be employed where the only consideration is concern about fetal awareness or pain . Similarly, there appeared to be no clear benefit in considering the need for fetal analgesia prior to termination of pregnancy, even after 24 weeks , in cases of fetal abnormality.

New Scientist ends their article with

"It is only after birth, with the separation of the baby from the uterus and the umbilical cord, that wakefulness truly begins."

According to the RCOG, only once that umbilical cord is cut can a child experience pain, never before.

By citing this wretched study, the argument of New Scientist and all pro-abortion advocates is clear:  pain experienced by fetuses in utero is hardly significant, and whatever ground the pro-life camp makes, the tide must be turned around, 360 degrees. Therefore, define fetuses as sub-human, never requiring pain medication, regardless of gestational age.

If the Supreme Court were to agree with the RCOG study, the issue of viability in Roe v. Wade would be moot. The experience of pain would be the true threshold, and that would only occur once the umbilical is cut when everyone can hear the newborn cry.

Abortionists like these subscribe to ideas similar to this one:

When a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.

Since these abortionists aren't there in the womb with the baby to see it writhe in pain, the baby's pain must not exist.

It would follow that neither does "a baby."

Crossposted at Redstate.

Y'know, there's a little mantra that exists about relationships, whispered between friends when they discuss their loves, their interests, their sex, whatever:

They're trying to control you.

You need out, man. You can't let her boss you around like that. You need to do what you want, when you want. You're in control of yo-sef. 

Girl, he's mistreatin' you again? And you're still with him? Don't you see he's got some kind of mind-control on you? The sex can't be that hot. He's tryin' to control you! 

Freedom, right? 

What "choice" have we predominately heard about when it comes to healthcare? Doctor choice? Clinic choice? Shot choice? No, pro-choice abortion. Ok? Your choice of deciding whether to have someone stick a probe up your uterus, suck your baby into a sink, or maybe syringe some saline solution to burn the baby out. If you're a guy, then it would apply to your choice of having your progeny decimated, it's brains squished and bloody body mangled enough to be poured into the same test tube you might use for donating your semen. Yeah, it's bad. Fight to keep your child alive.. or keep your boys safe to begin with. 

But, "choice." Because that "control" -- mind-control, sex control, intimidation control, whatever -- didn't allow you to choose to keep your legs shut or your penis in your pants in the first place. Because you didn't have a choice before conception, only after. 

Now it's come to light that someone actually admits that Obama's healthcare legislation is what conservatives knew all along: Control. Control over your medical choices.  Control over your medical decisions, what proponents of pro-choice  have argued against for decades: control over your body. 

A talk show host alludes to Democratic Representative Dingell:  if it's an emergency, if 18,000 people keep dying as a result of non-coverage, as dems proclaim, why are we waiting to implement socialized healthcare? Why over the course of years? Why not NOW? 

Dingell's response: we're not ready to control the people.

Oh, no. You're wrong, you say. They're not controlling our decisions. We can still choose our insurance and stuff. 

Nope. Guess who controls the insurance companies now. 

To you, I say this: leave him, honey. He isn't any good for you. If you think he's okay because he buys you trinkets, offers you a job, buys your dinner or pays your rent, it's all about control. Divorce yourself from the Progressive Movement and ditch Obama. 

Neither offer you your freedom.

Thirty-seven years ago the United States Supreme Court, in a display of judicial activism and constitutional revisionism at its worst, handed down the ruling in Roe v. Wade that made abortion, for any reason, legal. Since this decision, 52 million unborn children have had their lives taken from them, and the number grows each day.

Not only is it important for Roe v. Wade, and other rulings such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, to be overturned, but it is also important that we work to discourage mothers from having abortions. I support the advocacy that crisis pregnancy centers are involved in which provides counseling to expectant mothers and provides options to them other than abortion. I support many different pieces of pro-life legislation, such as a mother who is considering an abortion being given the opportunity to have an ultrasound, that are helping lower the number of abortions taking place in this country.

The respect and value of human life, at all stages, is the defining difference between a civilized society and an uncivilized society. It is imperative that those of us who have a voice and a vote take a stand for the millions of unborn children who do not have a voice or a vote. While we are saddened by the law and precedent set by the court almost forty years ago, we take heart in the great work that has been done since then to stop abortion and stand for the sanctity of each and every human life. The work has been made possible by people like Norma McCorvey, who was the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, but is now a part of the pro-life cause and supports making abortion illegal.

It will take Americans from all walks of life coming together to make sure this horrendous practice is no longer a commonality in or society. This is not simply a religious issue, this is a humanity issue. We can not sit idly by why the most liberal in this country allow children to have their lives taken from them. We must stand up for the voiceless and continue the work that has begun.

To learn more, please visit: www.chuckforcongress.com

Follow me on Twitter: @chuck4congress

It is one thing to judge, and another to excuse. The Manhattan Declaration does neither. I found this to be a rather profound statement by a large number of Christian leaders taking a stand for the foundations of civilization, the family, and the sanctity of human life. People of faith have to work together to preserve and protect the fundamental principles of morality from those who seek to destroy them. This declaration brings together numerous Catholic bishops, Orthodox clergy, and Evangelical leaders and as an evangelical Christian I will gladly partner with other types of Christians on the common concepts that form the backbone of Christianity.

From ManhattanDeclaration.org:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1.        the sanctity of human life

2.        the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife

3.        the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.                                                                                              

Even now the whispers of “hate speech,” “ignorance,” “bigotry,” “intolerance,” and “insensitivity” await those who now champion the sanctity of life or who fail to cheerlead homosexuality and sexual deviancy. Some have even gone so far as to label the Manhattan Declaration “hateful” or a call for civil disobedience. They are wrong. If anything, it is in fact a rather benign, formal declaration of what a great many believe. It is also a clear warning shot across the bow of the U.S.S. liberal agenda that Christians will not compromise their fundamental religious beliefs no matter what the state may attempt to dictate.

Those who seek to mock, disparage, and even persecute those who fail to march lockstep with the agenda of secular humanism need to understand that a line has been drawn in the sand and a wide spectrum of the Christian community is joining together in a common cause to proclaim God’s truth, as they understand it, as outlined in the Bible. These are clear cut and unambiguous issues for Bible-believing people of faith and compromise is not an option when it comes to these basic principles.

The suspension of judgment and the concept that there is no true right or wrong is a devious lie and one that often fools even otherwise educated and intelligent people. If you are willing to suspend judgment and the concept of right and wrong, then you will eventually accept anything. The “if-it-feels-good-do-it” mindset produces only heartache and disaster in the end. It is the wise man who rejects such childlike idiocy and expects adults to think and act like adults. With maturity should come responsibility, self-restraint, discernment, and wisdom. It stands in stark contrast to an ideology of dependency, irresponsibility, the inability to practice self-restraint and accept the consequences of one’s actions, and the continued childlike dependency on others to fix one’s own mistakes.

Popular culture may sneer at such ideas as morals and values, sexual restraint, and personal responsibility, at patriotism and good citizenship, and at honesty, decency, and respect. Those are the failings of secularists and liberals. They should not be of Christians and conservatives. Part and parcel of both Christianity and conservatism is the simple concept that actions have consequences. The concept of the prohibition of sin was not to somehow squash your “fun” but to warn one about the repercussions of certain actions. It was to protect us, not to be “mean” to us.

There may come a time when a declaration like this is labeled “hate speech” or contrary to the public good and banned from dissemination. One may think that is far-fetched but we currently stand at the edge of the abyss when it comes to thought-control, censorship, and even the persecution of those that don’t march lock step with the powers-that-be and the dictates of a corrupt, popular culture.

As our society and culture embraces decadence and earnestly seeks to fulfill the Prophet Isaiah’s warning that “good shall be called evil, and evil good” it is increasingly important for people of faith to stand up and be counted. It is time to draw a stark distinction between those who have sold out to situational morality and don’t believe in right or wrong, only “different.” Eleven of the twelve disciples achieved martyrdom by refusing to heed those who sought to silence them. It is incumbent upon Christians to stand up for what is right, no matter the cost. It is an essential element of the faith, and at the core of the teachings of Christ. To not call sin “sin” is to be dishonest and contrary to the teachings of the gospels.

The last paragraph of the Declaration reads:

 ”Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

There is something noble and honorable about standing for truth, as uncomfortable or inconvenient that may be for some on occasion. You can join the over 300,000 people of faith who have followed the example and lead of the initial 170 leaders of the Christian community who presented the world with the Manhattan Declaration. Dare to take a stand. Join what has gone far beyond a mere statement in defense of faith and principle, and is now becoming a movement of people of conscience taking a stand for the whole world to see.

Start the New Year by recommitting yourself to what is right and true. The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience can be read in its entirity at www.ManhattanDeclaration.org. I signed this powerful declaration and so should you. I like the spectrum and caliber of the signers and am proud to join my smallest of voices with theirs.The goal is for one million Christians to sign the declaration. Will you join me in doing so?

For more information on the thinking behind the Manhattan Declaration I would suggest the article by Dr. Timothy George, Dean of the Beeson Divinity School of Samford University, senior editor of Christianity Today, and one of the original architects of The Manhattan Declaration: The Manhattan Declaration:  A Growing, Grassroots Movement of the Spirit (http://www.colsoncenter.org/the-center/columns/call-response).

BEN NELSON SOLD OUT HIS COUNTRY, and he ensured the murder of potentially hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of American babies that will never be born. We were all fooled. We thought this man was principled. His vote was sold for guarantees for his state to extend full and permanent funding to everyone below 133% of the federal poverty level. The bill requires all states to do so. Nebraska alone would not be required to pay a portion of the additional costs after 2016. So the rest of the country gets to foot the bill for Nelson’s irresponsible cowardice and reprehensible lack of character.

Senator Ben Nelson

Harry Reid also porked up other  Senators with YOUR money, such as that champion of amendment withdrawal Bernie Sanders, to keep him shut up about the public option… the cake topping the ultra Maoist wing of the party is looking for. While Senator Nelson was busy looking for political cover so he could sell out his constituents and his country, good ole’ Dingy Harry was making sure generations of unborn human babies would stay that way. Under Reid’s latest 383 page amendment, THERE IS NO PROHIBITION ON ABORTION COVERAGE. In federally subsidized plans participating in the exchange,  everyone enrolled in one of these plans must pay a MONTHLY ABORTION PREMIUM. The Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people. The supposed opt out option is a SHAM, because it does nothing to prevent the states opting out from having to pay for the ones permitting abortions.

Clearly, conservatives have our work cut out for us. With passage of this health care monstrosity all but certain now that Nelson has turned, barring a 12th hour surprise, we have to ensure that every single Senator and Representative that voted for it pays the ultimate political price for it. “This is not the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning”. (Winston Churchill).

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

If you build your house on sand….President Obama is getting some of his karma back. His unmitigated arrogance and self-aggrandizement is going to come at a terrible price to the country…to him and those around him. But they can’t see that yet. Now we even see the First Lady politicizing breast cancer, to advance what is very probably going to be a health care bill which is going to arrive DOA. From my lips to God’s ears. The House bill, should it pass, would cost this country ONE TRILLION DOLLARS and counting. Nothing the government EVER does comes in at anywhere close to the wild imaginings of the authors of these nutzoid  creations. As we speak, there appears to be an insurrection in the House which will stop “Nancy with the Smiling Eyes” bill dead in its tracks. A group of 40 pro-life Democrats has joined with Republicans to pledge to VOTE NO on any bill which has provision for funding for abortions… which it does. This would ensure that the bill in its present form would never leave the House floor. Nothing this President, or the Marxists he’s imported to his government have done, has been with the interest of the American people, the economy, or our military services who are engaged around the world fighting an implacable enemy who would see this country destroyed. It has been done to further an only slightly less onerous ideology, whose goal is control over every aspect of American life and values. The assault by the administration on the first amendment, as exemplified by the attack on Fox News, has been (at long last) met by a unified group of major network editorial chiefs who must have finally woken up and smelled the skunk cabbage that is the Obama White House. They saw, belatedly, but they saw that they would invariably be next. They have drawn a line in the sand. Now we get to see if they have the strength of their convictions. This fight has only just been joined. The White House’s FCC lapdogs are after the freedom of the internet also…resistance is mounting to that assault as we speak. A FREE PRESS IS A FREE SOCIETY… the internet is part of that press, free and unrestrained it is a priceless resource for instantaneous delivery of information. True it is incumbent upon the user to filter through the mists of sometimes wildly inaccurate and fanciful stories that are available out there, but this is freedom of expression and the press also. Keep your hands off our Net. Keep your hands off our radios, keep your hands of of our televisions. The communist leftists cannot compete in the arena of ideas, so they have to co-opt it through stacked courts and regulatory agencies which are not subject to the crucible of public scrutiny, whose examination they cannot withstand. Darkness and secrecy were ever their way. The Free Press and the Free Internet cast a light upon them which shows them for what they are. Enemies of America…and Enemies of the American people.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

Why is it that when one lone moron goes off the rails and does something henious you get a chorus of voices crying out how this proves that socially conservative views don't belong in the Republican party?  If you want to remain a minority party then go ahead and throw out oppostion to abortion and a preference for male female relationships over homosexual ones.  The social conservatives have been told for year after year to suck it up and vote republican because, after all it's better than the democrats and what choice do you have anyway?  Now they are proposing to jettison everything that makes the R's distinct from the D's on the social side and they think that wil lead to victory?  In fact what it will lead to (and indeed what it has been leading to for some time now) is religious voters staying home and voting for none of the above or even the creation of a spoiler party catering to the religious vote that insures that the Republicans stay out of power for a long, long time.

But go ahead folks.  Show me and millions of others that you don't have a clue as to how to build coalitions and how the party must be purified from all those nasty conservatives and let's see how toothless and useless you will be until you wake up one day and realize that you've destroyed yourselves and much of the country in the process.

Oh and I see denunciations of "legislating morality".  That phrase has got to be one of the most asinine phrases in the whole of human history.  How are any laws not a legislation of morality?  Spend 5 minutes reflecting on the fact that a law is only passed to stop people from doing what they otherwise would do and you will realize that is a pretty straightforward definition of "legislating morality".

I was very interested to see the reaction of many Republicans to the over-the-top behavior of the extreme right in the wake of the assassination of abortion doctor George Tiller earlier this week. On The Next Right they quickly removed an offensive article and comments had loudly condemned the author. On Little Green Footballs they posted a substantial article condemning commenters and posters on several other right-leaning blogs for their comments about Tiller. These reactions give a clear impression that more and more mainstream Republicans are fed up with the fanaticism of the religious right, sickened over their behavior over the Tiller issue and just about ready to give them the boot.

Is it possible that this incident is the straw which finally broke the camel's back and has created an unhealable rift between rational conservatives and the extremists of the religious right? Even Republicans who are socially conservative seem to have had enough of the extremist rhetoric and support for violence coming from people like Fred Phelps and Randall Terry. They seem to have worken up to the fact that the fanaticism and terrorism they oppose in the Islamic world is not much different from the beliefs held by some they considered allies.

As Barry Goldwater pointed out many years ago, the one thing which Republicans ought to be extreme about is liberty and on all other issues they ought to be rational and pragmatic. Maybe that lesson which he spent decades trying to teach with his own actions, is finally sinking in.

The obsession with legislating morality and with opposition to abortion and gay rights is really not part of the core Republican agenda. These ideas and the fanaticism they inspire were brought into the party through its alliance in the post-Reagan era with religious conservatives. Historically, Republicans have had a laissez faire attitude, not just to the economy, but also on moral issues. Republicans used to be dispassionate, leaving moral decisions in the hands of individuals and keeping government out of the picture. It seems like the pendulum might be swinging back in that direction.

As Abraham Lincoln said many years ago, our nation and by extension the Republican Party, was "conceived in liberty" and that idea of individual liberty ought to be the basis of every policy and every decision which Republicans make. There is very little question that abortion is a sin, but shouldn't that sin be a matter of personal responsibility to be resolved between the individual and his or her soul and church and god? Once you get government involved, a change in policy or administration could as easily mean forced abortion and sterilization as you have in China as it could mean protecting unborn fetuses. Putting such personal decisions in the hands of government can only work out badly when there is the potential to go to either extreme.

This change in attitude in the GOP seems real and very significant. It has been building for years, starting with uneasiness with many Bush administration policies and perhaps culminating with the Tiller incident. That doesn't mean that I expect a wholesale casting out of the religious right, but it does seem as if the more reasonable elements of the religious wing of the party are finally realizing that they have to distance themselves from the exrtremists, and perhaps put broader priorities first if they want to continue to play a role in the party and if they want that party to be successful. Extremism has been like an anchor dragging the GOP down and if the party cannot cast itself free of that extremism and chart a better course for itself it will never be successful.

Fanaticism and extremism breed violence and terror and are the enemies of liberty. If we are determined to fight them in the War on Terror how can we be less vigilant in opposing them at home? If we are to have a Republican party which makes liberty its first priority, then it must reject extremism and intolerance in every form. We can still embrace conservative and moral values, but we must accept that these are personal values and that only evil and oppression can come from giving government the power to dictate morality and institutionalize the prejudices of religious fanatics.