I am shocked and saddened by the Supreme Court's ruling today in Whole Womens' Health v. Hellerstedt. I thought it would be a good time for the following reminders.
Abortion is genocide because it has killed over 58 million human beings in the United States alone since Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Abortion is slavery because it lets some human beings decide whether other innocent and helpless humans live or die. (Here's Dr. Martin Luther King's daughter making that very same point.)
Abortion is racial discrimination because it disproportionately targets ethnic minorities, was intended to do so by Planned Parenthood's founder, and is the number one killer of African Americans today.
Abortion is harmful to women because of the prevalence of sex-selective abortions around the world, because of deaths and injuries to mothers that have resulted from abortion, and because of today's Court decision which rules that abortion providers do not need medically acceptable facilities or admitting privileges at hospitals - unlike any other surgical provider.
Not only is abortion all of those things, but its practitioners regularly break the law and distort the truth about scientific data, exactly how many abortions they perform, and their public value for protecting women's health.
I could go on.
The practice of abortion is a barbaric atrocity that must be snuffed out. I pray I live to see the day that it is.
Monday, June 27, 2016
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
I Really Hope Hillary Clinton Is The Democratic Nominee
Today, in the Wall Street Journal, Douglas Schoen writes that reports of Hillary Clinton's status as the presumptive Democratic nominee may be greatly exaggerated. If Bernie Sanders wins or comes close in the California primary (and the polls suggest it's at least possible), the nomination would come down to whichever way the superdelegates lean. Given recent poll numbers showing Clinton with rising unfavorables and a close race against Trump, combined with the very real possibility that she may be indicted any day, the superdelegates may well decide that a Sanders candidacy provides a better chance at the White House.
This would be bad for all Americans. Here's why.
First of all, Donald Trump is already a poor candidate for the Republican Party. He has massively high unfavorable ratings. An entire contingent of his own party refuses to vote for him. He doesn't seem to believe his own schtick and flip-flops frequently. Most of those in his own party who actually support him do so with all the reluctant enthusiasm of a frazzled ride attendant at Disney World. Finally, many Republicans only support him to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination, or because they think he will pick better Supreme Court justices than she will.
Here's the thing, though: Clinton is just as weak. Due to her unfavorables and three different looming scandals (Benghazi, emails, AND the Clinton Foundation), she even seems beatable if Trump unifies the GOP and rights his own ship.
Sanders, however, is running up double-digit leads on Trump, and has the strong backing of the younger and more radical fringe of the Democratic party. Running him against Trump would likely guarantee a Democratic president for the next four years.
That's the first problem. The second revolves around what kind of president Sanders would be.
Unlike Clinton, Sanders is an avowed socialist, and has been one since before the Soviet Union fell. His memoir states that he supported the Sandinistas' proxy war against the Reagan-helmed United States and honeymooned in the USSR. He frequently rails against "the 1%" and "millionaires and billionaires" (even though he is one), and has vowed to raise taxes across the board to pay for new government programs. (See how Bernie's plan would affect you here! Spoiler alert: His plan would likely bankrupt the country for good.)
Sanders is a socialist, which is undeniably worse than whatever flavor of crony capitalist Clinton is. Though, frankly, choosing between crony capitalism and socialism is like choosing whether to drink Ipecac or bleach, respectively.
And now, we come to the final problem with a Sanders nomination. If the Democrats nominate Sanders, conservatives like me who find voting for Donald Trump unconscionable will be faced with an unthinkable choice. We would be forced to either vote for The Donald, a man completely unfit to be President, or cede the election – and the country – to socialism. At that point, any support for a more conservative third-party candidate would take votes from Trump, the candidate with the best chance to defeat socialism. That's the practical reality, however much we may hate it.
This horrible choice between supporting a lunatic and allowing a socialist to win would be on my mind, and on the mind of every true conservative, if Sanders wins. I truly believe that the Republic can survive four years of Clinton. It may be resilient enough to survive four years of Trump. I do not think it can survive four years of socialism.
This would be bad for all Americans. Here's why.
First of all, Donald Trump is already a poor candidate for the Republican Party. He has massively high unfavorable ratings. An entire contingent of his own party refuses to vote for him. He doesn't seem to believe his own schtick and flip-flops frequently. Most of those in his own party who actually support him do so with all the reluctant enthusiasm of a frazzled ride attendant at Disney World. Finally, many Republicans only support him to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination, or because they think he will pick better Supreme Court justices than she will.
Here's the thing, though: Clinton is just as weak. Due to her unfavorables and three different looming scandals (Benghazi, emails, AND the Clinton Foundation), she even seems beatable if Trump unifies the GOP and rights his own ship.
Sanders, however, is running up double-digit leads on Trump, and has the strong backing of the younger and more radical fringe of the Democratic party. Running him against Trump would likely guarantee a Democratic president for the next four years.
That's the first problem. The second revolves around what kind of president Sanders would be.
Unlike Clinton, Sanders is an avowed socialist, and has been one since before the Soviet Union fell. His memoir states that he supported the Sandinistas' proxy war against the Reagan-helmed United States and honeymooned in the USSR. He frequently rails against "the 1%" and "millionaires and billionaires" (even though he is one), and has vowed to raise taxes across the board to pay for new government programs. (See how Bernie's plan would affect you here! Spoiler alert: His plan would likely bankrupt the country for good.)
Sanders is a socialist, which is undeniably worse than whatever flavor of crony capitalist Clinton is. Though, frankly, choosing between crony capitalism and socialism is like choosing whether to drink Ipecac or bleach, respectively.
And now, we come to the final problem with a Sanders nomination. If the Democrats nominate Sanders, conservatives like me who find voting for Donald Trump unconscionable will be faced with an unthinkable choice. We would be forced to either vote for The Donald, a man completely unfit to be President, or cede the election – and the country – to socialism. At that point, any support for a more conservative third-party candidate would take votes from Trump, the candidate with the best chance to defeat socialism. That's the practical reality, however much we may hate it.
This horrible choice between supporting a lunatic and allowing a socialist to win would be on my mind, and on the mind of every true conservative, if Sanders wins. I truly believe that the Republic can survive four years of Clinton. It may be resilient enough to survive four years of Trump. I do not think it can survive four years of socialism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)