Sunday, April 13, 2014 4:30PM
by Gavin Seim
I know my messages are not sensational, but here’s what’s really happening on the ground.
Posted in Acknowledgement of God, Keep and Bear Arms, Rights of The People, The Good Guys, tagged Anthony Bosworth, Battle of Bunkerville, Bundy Ranch, Gavin Seim, Nathan Seim, Rep. Kelly Townsend, Ryan Bundy on April 13, 2014 | 1 Comment »
Posted in Acknowledgement of God, Freedom Agenda, The Good Guys, tagged Anthony Bosworth, BLM, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Cliven Bundy, Cope Reynolds, Dave Reichert, David Taylor, Douglas Gillespie, Gavin Seim, Jamie Herrera Beutler, Jason Overstreet, Las Vegas Police Daprtment, LVPD, Maria Bosworth, Matt Shea, Paul Lind, Scott Brumback, Sheriff Mack, Stewart Rhodes on April 12, 2014 | 2 Comments »
[Reagan Wing staff began Saturday hoping for information from Anthony Bosworth and Gavin Seim, our eyes and ears at the Bundy Battlefield. There were no messages. We knew a meeting between Sheriff Gillespie and Cliven Bundy was scheduled for 9:00 AM. Our last communication from Anthony was at 1:22AM. We began to monitor the news feeds, alternating checking Anthony and Gavin’s FaceBook pages. We learned of an apparent deal brokered by the sheriff. Internet problems inhibited viewing Gavin’s live feed of the sheriff’s announcement and Bundy’s response. At 11:05 AM Anthony posted photographs. Moments later, Gavin posted this:
Urgent. People are mounting up with guns and appear to be heading to retake the the cattle and block I-15. Things are not looking good.
In honor of the Seahawk’s first Super Bowl, we re-publish this article from 2011
“The Speaker tonight talked about the eleven of us letting the team down. The more significant question and the question that never gets asked in Washington, D.C., is whose teams are we on?”
↓ ↓ ↓ (more…)
By Rob Chase, Spokane County Treasurer Elect and PCO
It is no secret there are two factions vying for control of the Republican Party, Conservatives and Moderates, and this is true even at the local level. This battle goes back to Goldwater and Reagan vs Rockefeller and Bush. Conservatives champion the Constitution and limited government, while Moderates strive for bi-partisanship, consensus, and mediocrity.
The local Moderates take their orders from Bellevue and are trying to
shut down the grassroots of freedom in Spokane County because they
believe the GOP should be directed from the top down, rather than from the grassroots. In 2012 they will try to shove Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich down our throats just as they did with John McCain in 2008 (Global Warming – Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act, an F grade from Gun Owners of America
http://gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm, and traitor to over 600 POW’s left
behind in Vietnam http://amconmag.com/article/2010/jul/01/00010/),
and more recently, the tepid Senatorial Candidate Dino Rossi.
But the Moderates are in trouble in Spokane County. You always know they are in trouble when they start preaching about unity (on their terms). (more…)
Posted in 2010 U.S. Senate Race, Candidates and Campaigns, Clint Didier, Dino Rossi, Patriotism, Republican Party Reform, Republican Principles, Tea Parties, The Good Guys, Washington State GOP on August 6, 2010 | 25 Comments »
You’ve all heard people say it and you might believe it yourself. “I like Clint Didier, but I have to vote for Dino Rossi, because he is the only one who can beat Patty Murray.” Really?
With stubborn wrongheadedness, mainstream Republicans cling steadfastly to the belief that only the moderate, not really conservative candidate can win, even though it has proven to be a faulty strategy. The same thing, after all, was said about McCain. On blog after blog, on the radio and on Facebook they keep insisting that Rossi is the only one who can win, as if by chanting it in recitation together their cosmic mantra will somehow make it so.
Rossi made the list of Crew’s Crooked Candidates. Granted, this site is run by admitted progressives, but they do list the reasons for his inclusion and they are troubling. Guilt by association with criminals might not be sufficient to convict him in a court of law, but perceptions by voters DO influence elections. If you look at the left’s websites, they have plenty of dirt ready to sling at Rossi. Wouldn’t it be great to have a candidate who is not so tainted?
Rossi’s appearing at a sales event promoting making money off of foreclosures after declaring his candidacy might not be illegal, but it was certainly tasteless given the suffering of so many in this economic downturn. It plays seamlessly into the “sleazy real estate dealings” accusation.
Jumping in at the last minute and not running a real campaign or engaging the other candidates might be perceived as a clever political strategy. In fact I have seen his hiding out referred to as “expert political gamesmanship” and “he only loses if he engages the other candidates in the primary, so why should he do that?”
Only thing is, ducking and hiding might be praised by politicos but it is not well perceived in the general public, who are certainly more than a little tired of politicking over principles and fluff over substance. (more…)
The Cream of the Crop
The Republican field of senate candidates was the best in decades. Every one of them would have been a better match for Patty Murray than Dino Rossi, whose false conservatives credentials have been thoroughly exposed in a series of articles about his voting record as a state senator. [http://wp.me/p3Rqg-2nd, http://wp.me/p3Rqg-2nm, http://wp.me/p3Rqg-2nE ] The only candidate willing to stand up against the status quo is Clint Didier. He’s the only candidate willing to speak out against the establishment of both parties. He’s the honest small business owner and farmer from eastern Washington.
Clint Didier is the correct replacement, not only for Patty Murray, but for the worn out, top down command system of the Washington state GOP elites.
As a small business owner in Eastern Washington, Clint Didier embodies everything that’s good, right, and just in Washington and in America. He’s raising a beautiful family, coaching high school football, and providing for his family with what the ground produces. This is an example of an American success story, but it hasn’t been easy. Success is born from dedication, honor, discipline, and faith in God. Clint Didier’s success is tied to all of that, Clint Didier is the epitome of the statesman the Founding Fathers expected of our legislators.
In Washington State, voters will have a choice in the primary; they can vote to once again give us the choice of two evils and more of the same, or they can vote to replace Patty Murray with a man of the people, who understands the people, and understands his job is to represent the people, not the party interest, and not his own personal interests. That man is Clint Didier!
This week, former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, made it clear what the plan is for Clint Didier, Rand Paul, Sharon Angle and others when they arrive in the other Washington as freshman senators, should they be so silly as to attempt to join forces with “Tea Party-minded” legislators such as Jim DeMint in what was first described by Rand Paul as a potential “Tea Party Caucus.”
Lott told the Washington Post “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”
Well, forwarned is forearmed. At least Lott is being honest. Take a listen to Jack Hunter’s take on this scurrilous proposal by the establishment determined to hang onto power at the cost of your liberty:
To view the video click here. Below is the condensed version in text.
I am simply troubled, and maybe you are too, by this recent influx of hyphenated conservatives. Neo-conservatives over here. Paleo-conservatives over there. Compassionate conservatives out in the hallway, and the latest nonsenseâcommonsense conservatives.
Now I am glad to see that at least today, March 2, 2007 everybody running for the top office is some kind of conservative.
But for those of us who have been unhyphenated conservatives since before Al Gore invented the Internet, (more…)
On Lincoln’s birthday, it’s a good time to remember the founding of the Republican Party. We were founded on a moral issue. We were founded on the principle that no man should ever be considered the property of another. Ronald Reagan, who’s birthday we also celebrated recently, saw the correlation between slavery and abortion. As he wrote in Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation:
Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred
Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to —any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the
issue is clearly framed and presented.
We now remember the words of President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address:
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth
upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether
that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . .
can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place
for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.
It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . .
we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead,
who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power
to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember,
what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.
It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished
work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining
before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion
to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . .
that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . .
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . .
and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . .
shall not perish from the earth.
In honor of President Lincoln, let’s renew our “dedication to the promise that all men are created equal.” Let’s dedicate ourselves with “increased devotion” to the “unfinished work”.
Let’s rediscover our roots as Republicans. We are not merely about lower taxes. If we are, we deserve every bit of criticism for being greedy pigs, out to help “the rich get richer”. Our party doesn’t exist “to win elections” either. Rather, we are about what is right, and we exist to do what’s right. Let’s choose our leaders, candidates and issues accordingly.
We remember the strong pro-life leadership of Ronald Reagan today, February 6, 2007, which would have been his 96th birthday. He was never concerned with the political costs of speaking what was right. This was from his final State of the Union Speech (January 25, 1988).
Tonight, I call America–a good nation, a moral people–to charitable but realistic consideration of the terrible cost of abortion on demand.
To those who say this violates a woman’s right to control of her own body: Can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child
is a living human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Let us unite as a nation and protect the unborn with legislation that would stop all Federal funding for abortion and with a human life amendment making, of course, an exception where the unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Our Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right of taking a life in self-defense. But with that one exception, let us look to those others in our land who cry out for children to adopt. I pledge to you tonight I will work to remove
barriers to adoption and extend full sharing in family life to millions
of Americans so that children who need homes can be welcomed to
families who want them and love them.
Of course, we know today that he was not successful in passing a human life amendment. He had a Democrat majority in Congress. We have not since had a president in favor of a human life amendment, which would recognize the unborn child has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This would put an end to legalized abortion. Instead, we are left to hope that we will have enough justices on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, leaving ourselves and our politicians off the hook, essentially.
Let us pray for more leaders like Reagan, and let us settle for nothing less.
Happy Birthday, Ronald Reagan!
Do you remember those silly bracelets several years back donning, "WWJD"? I remember asking a couple of teenagers what that meant, after the fad had apparently taken off. They looked at me as if to say "Where have you been?" When they translated it for me, "What would Jesus Do?", I was underwhelmed. And this was confirmed for me when I began to observe the slogan being put to use. I noticed that it would frequently be used to say, be "calm", "peaceful", "loving" in the face of evil. The underlying meaning, was to never be critical, throwing out the window the Lord’s righteous indignation at the money changers in the temple, or the many of His saints who stood up to evil. They apparently would not fit the "WWJD" model. WWJD became a recreated idea of Jesus, not an actual Person.
Fast forward to 2004-2005, with the nearing and eventual passing of America’s beloved Ronald Reagan, I was amazed at the increasing revisionist history of Republican leaders to make Reagan out to be someone who never confronted evil in his own party, using his "11th Commandment" which said "Speak no ill of your fellow Republican". The revisionists used their version of Reagan to dissuade Republican primary candidates to avoid criticizing their primary opponents, even to compare their positions on issues, throwing out the window his Republican primary speech where he harshly criticized his Republican opponent and incumbent president Gerald R. Ford.
I guess the reason the WWJD slogan bothered me is the same reason the new WWRD vendors bother me. The WWJD slogan suggests no relationship with Jesus or His teachings, but a reference to a fictional character. The new WWRD (Reagan revisionists vendors) seek to fictionalize Reagan and demonstrate no real understanding of his principles, meanwhile making him into some sort of pseudo-god for Reagan-ites to pay homage to, when it seems we’ve wandered "too far to the right". As a Reagan-ite, let me give them a reminder: Jesus is God. Reagan is not.
And I wouldn’t be the first to say that Reagan occasionally made mistakes in public policy. Sometimes they were big ones, having far reaching consequences. As governor of California, his biggest ones were on abortion and on no-fault divorce. As president, his Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, otherwise known as "amnesty for illegal aliens". Before you believe the WWRD vendors, you must read what Ed Meese, former Attorney General and close advisor in the Reagan administration has to say in Reagan Would Not Repeat Amnesty Mistake.
More support for Tancredo, now from World Net Daily columnist, Jane Chastain:
Tom Tancredo is
well-known and deeply appreciated by the party’s conservative base and
he’s got charisma that fills a room and literally oozes out the doors
and onto the street. It is the kind that comes from deeply rooted
convictions that rise up from the soul and excite those around him, not
the kind manufactured by Madison Avenue that, after the initial
excitement, leaves you with an empty feeling and a bad aftertaste.
On his accross the board, conservative and pro-life credentials:
He has received rating
of "A" or better on his voting record from the American Conservative
Union, the National Right to Life Committee, the National Rifle
Association, Family Research Council, Americans for Better Immigration
and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Jane gives us this reminder though:
His is a candidacy that
can ignite the grass roots. His fate, however, depends on our
willingness to put early money behind our rhetoric.
Have you contributed yet? If not, go here.
Meanwhile, V-Dare has this piece on the challenges Tancredo faces in building a conservative coalition paired with his ability to mobilize a movement on the issue of illegal immigration, including "Lou Dobbs Democrats". The question is, will our pro-life movement broaden our perspective, take the right position on illegal immigration and join Tancredo’s movement?
Today, Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project made the following statement:
The Minuteman Project will provide its full and unconditional
support to Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Co.) in his efforts to represent
America as the next President. Mr. Tancredo is the
political pioneer that inspired me to create The Minuteman Project.
The millions of supporters of all the minuteman/woman groups across
the nation stand ready to give their time and resources to a great
American who will humbly and sincerely strive to represent all
Americans and who will guide this nation back to governance by the
people and under the rule of law.
There is no better candidate for president of The United States of America than Colorado’s honorable Tom Tancredo.
Visit Team Tancredo for more information and to support Tom!
SOURCE: The Minuteman Project
And if you think that those opposed to the Minuteman Project, or those who are entering our country illegally are good Catholic Hispanics with family values, you need to see the hate mail that the Minuteman Project gets. (Warning: Not suitable to read or view with your children sitting in the room.)
If you’re not familiar with Judie Brown, President and co-founder of American Life League, you should be. She has written an important new book with the provocative title, Saving Those Damned Catholics. Chronicling "the reasons why the current mess within the Catholic Church is not something that should surprise anyone, whether Catholic, Protestant, or just curious." The reason for the mess, in short, is dissidence within the Church’s own ranks, primarily within the clergy itself.
I can’t wait to read it. My favorite endorsement of it comes from Congressman (B-1-) Bob Dornan:
"With wit, insight and fearless presentation of the facts, Saving Those Damned Catholics shreds the “seamless garment” most Catholic Bishops use to cloak their sinfully silent consent to legalized abortion. Saving Those Damned Catholics will inspire you with the fortitude and the will to tackle this eternally urgent mission."
If you’re pro-life, Catholic and Republican, you, like me, have a two-fold mission: 1) defending orthodoxy in the Catholic Church (because if our message to the world is weakened, who will defend innocent life, not to mention, proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ and the need for salvation?) and 2) ensuring we have a political party that works for the end to legalized abortion.
H.T.: Causa Nostrae Laetitiae
If you’re a reader from Washington’s 19th district, you have the opportunity to vote for and support an excellent pro-life candidate. If you’re not from the 19th, that’s OK too. You can still send him a check. Tim Sutinen, an immigrant from Finland and proud American, who has previously run for state representative, will be running in this years special election for state senator. (The special election is being held since the former state senator, Mark Doumit resigned and Brian Hatfield-D was appointed to temporarily fill the seat.)
Tim has the potential to be a rising star in Washington politics. He’s bright, articulate, and has a keen understanding and appreciation for American principles on a broad range of issues.
Here is Tim in his own words on life issues:
My views on life issues are pretty simple:
- life begins at conception
- abortion in all of its forms is wrong
- human life must be protected from womb to old age
- My wife & I are optimistic about the future: We have eight children. (Tim is shown above having fun with his family)
Bookmark Tim’s website: www.timsutinen.com Currently, the homepage has information about his previous campaign, but no doubt, it will be updated soon. Do what you can to help his campaign.
Immediately following the big Republican losses in Novemnber, Ken Marotte, a bright young writer and conservative pro-life activist, reviewing the reasons for the losses, moved forward and gave his endorsement of Tom Tancredo for President. The column was featured at Renew America. Here is an exerpt:
Even the most pessimistic of Republican observers predicted the GOP to keep one house of Congress. But surpassing all expectations, the Democrats took hold of America’s entire legislative branch. On Nov. 8, a stunned and disappointed Bush mused that Democrats "did a superb job in turning out the vote."
A correction is due — Republicans, not Democrats, turned out the vote in favor of the Democratic Party. Republicans have continued to push the flawed war in Iraq — an issue vital to voters and opposed by two-thirds of the country. Perhaps worse, on an abundance of other issues, the President and his party have run away from principle and into the arms of political expediency.
With the damage done, Republicans quickly look forward to 2008. Who will lead our party as presidential contender? Learning from the past few years, our next candidate has got to have sturdy convictions, an open mind, and an independent personality. (Click here to continue reading.)
It’s official! Tom Tancredo has formed his exploratory committee. The announcement today was greatly anticipated. Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, known mostly for his outspoken opposition to illegal immigration and "guest-worker"/ amnesty for illegal aliens, has had numerous conservative columnists and bloggers calling for a "draft Tancredo" campaign.
Those supporting other Republican nominees, have often called him a "one issue candidate", but Tancredo has the potential to not only unite Republicans by his unwavering stance on issues important to conservatives, but could also offer a vision of America likely to excite the average American, the way Ronald Reagan did. His no-nonsense approach, outspoken disdain for the politics of compromise that whittles away at American principles of freedom and justice, being equally critical of Democrats and Republicans, is just the kind of straight talk that makes the average American say, "Yes! Now that’s a man who stands up for what’s right!"
What pro-lifers may not know: So far, Tancredo is the only presidential hopeful who has clearly expressed his support for an amendment to the constitution protecting life. From his exploratory website:
As a devout Christian, father, and grandfather, I am a strong believer in the rights to life for the unborn child. I also believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. For years, activist judges have undermined both life and marriage. As president I would stop this by appointing strict constructionists as judges, reining in the power of the judiciary, and supporting constitutional amendments that respect marriage and life.
But Tancredo faces an uphill battle, to be sure. The establishment Republicans will certainly be lined up against him. In fact, he has entered this race because of the "void that exists" for a conservative candidate, namely on the issue of illegal immigration, but one who is both a true social and pro-life conservative and is serious about securing our borders and policies that discourage illegal immigration. Of course, he knows this is an uphill battle:
"It’s delusional to suggest that this would not be anything but a David and Goliath situation, but after all, David won," Tancredo told the Des Moines Register in an interview published yesterday. "Things like this happen in politics, but no matter what happens, it will force America to focus on these issues."
UPDATE: La Shawn Barber, "Sweetheart of the Blogosphere", supports a Tancredo presidency! She also offers her Christian perspective on illegal immigration. In related news: Coming soon, my Catholic (Christian) perspective on illegal immigration and how it relates to a pro-life perspective. So keep visiting!
In all of the "post mortems" about Tuesday’s election from the Washington State pundits, one question is missing: What happened to the Reagan Revolution? They’ll be quick to tell you that it has nothing to do with abortion. They contend that no openly pro-life candidate can win statewide election in Washington. They must want us to forget that we elected at least one TWICE, overwhelmingly. They must want us to forget that it was the same man who wrote this in 1983, just months before his landslide re-election:
Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation
The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators — not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation’s wars.
Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.
As an act of "raw judicial power" (to use Justice White’s biting phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.
Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: "… any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life. We saw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the starvation death of "Baby Doe" in Bloomington because the child had Down’s Syndrome.
Many of our fellow citizens grieve over the loss of life that has followed Roe v. Wade. Margaret Heckler, soon after being nominated to head the largest department of our government, Health and Human Services, told an audience that she believed abortion to be the greatest moral crisis facing our country today. And the revered Mother Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that "the greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children."
Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion — efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of "freedom of choice," have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.
Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to — any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the issue is clearly framed and presented.
What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.
The case against abortion does not rest here, however, for medical practice confirms at every step the correctness of these moral sensibilities. Modern medicine treats the unborn child as a patient. Medical pioneers have made great breakthroughs in treating the unborn — for genetic problems, vitamin deficiencies, irregular heart rhythms, and other medical conditions. Who can forget George Will’s moving account of the little boy who underwent brain surgery six times during the nine weeks before he was born? Who is the patient if not that tiny unborn human being who can feel pain when he or she is approached by doctors who come to kill rather than to cure?
The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law — the same right we have.
What more dramatic confirmation could we have of the real issue than the Baby Doe case in Bloomington, Indiana? The death of that tiny infant tore at the hearts of all Americans because the child was undeniably a live human being — one lying helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The real issue for the courts was not whether Baby Doe was a human being. The real issue was whether to protect the life of a human being who had Down’s Syndrome, who would probably be mentally handicapped, but who needed a routine surgical procedure to unblock his esophagus and allow him to eat. A doctor testified to the presiding judge that, even with his physical problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a "non-existent" possibility for "a minimally adequate quality of life" — in other words, that retardation was the equivalent of a crime deserving the death penalty. The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court sanctioned his decision.
Federal law does not allow federally-assisted hospitals to decide that Down’s Syndrome infants are not worth treating, much less to decide to starve them to death. Accordingly, I have directed the Departments of Justice and HHS to apply civil rights regulations to protect handicapped newborns. All hospitals receiving federal funds must post notices which will clearly state that failure to feed handicapped babies is prohibited by federal law. The basic issue is whether to value and protect the lives of the handicapped, whether to recognize the sanctity of human life. This is the same basic issue that underlies the question of abortion.
The 1981 Senate hearings on the beginning of human life brought out the basic issue more clearly than ever before. The many medical and scientific witnesses who testified disagreed on many things, but not on the scientific evidence that the unborn child is alive, is a distinct individual, or is a member of the human species. They did disagree over the value question, whether to give value to a human life at its early and most vulnerable stages of existence.
Regrettably, we live at a time when some persons do not value all human life. They want to pick and choose which individuals have value. Some have said that only those individuals with "consciousness of self" are human beings. One such writer has followed this deadly logic and concluded that "shocking as it may seem, a newly born infant is not a human being."
A Nobel Prize winning scientist has suggested that if a handicapped child "were not declared fully human until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice." In other words, "quality control" to see if newly born human beings are up to snuff.
Obviously, some influential people want to deny that every human life has intrinsic, sacred worth. They insist that a member of the human race must have certain qualities before they accord him or her status as a "human being."
Events have borne out the editorial in a California medical journal which explained three years before Roe v. Wade that the social acceptance of abortion is a "defiance of the long-held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status."
Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the "quality of life" ethic.
I have no trouble identifying the answer our nation has always given to this basic question, and the answer that I hope and pray it will give in the future. American was founded by men and women who shared a vision of the value of each and every individual. They stated this vision clearly from the very start in the Declaration of Independence, using words that every schoolboy and schoolgirl can recite:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind — black people in America — could not be denied the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them. The great champion of the sanctity of all human life in that day, Abraham Lincoln, gave us his assessment of the Declaration’s purpose. Speaking of the framers of that noble document, he said:
This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on… They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children’s children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages.
He warned also of the danger we would face if we closed our eyes to the value of life in any category of human beings:
I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?
When Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee the rights of life, liberty, and property to all human beings, he explained that all are "entitled to the protection of American law, because its divine spirit of equality declares that all men are created equal." He said the right guaranteed by the amendment would therefore apply to "any human being." Justice William Brennan, writing in another case decided only the year before Roe v. Wade, referred to our society as one that "strongly affirms the sanctity of life."
Another William Brennan — not the Justice — has reminded us of the terrible consequences that can follow when a nation rejects the sanctity of life ethic:
The cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect.
As a nation today, we have not rejected the sanctity of human life. The American people have not had an opportunity to express their view on the sanctity of human life in the unborn. I am convinced that Americans do not want to play God with the value of human life. It is not for us to decide who is worthy to live and who is not. Even the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade did not explicitly reject the traditional American idea of intrinsic worth and value in all human life; it simply dodged this issue.
The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981 which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of abortion.
The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is "to protect innocent life, both before and after birth." This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.
I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life.
We must all educate ourselves to the reality of the horrors taking place. Doctors today know that unborn children can feel a touch within the womb and that they respond to pain. But how many Americans are aware that abortion techniques are allowed today, in all 50 states, that burn the skin of a baby with a salt solution, in an agonizing death that can last for hours?
Another example: two years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a Sunday special supplement on "The Dreaded Complication." The "dreaded complication" referred to in the article — the complication feared by doctors who perform abortions — is the survival of the child despite all the painful attacks during the abortion procedure. Some unborn children do survive the late-term abortions the Supreme Court has made legal. Is there any question that these victims of abortion deserve our attention and protection? Is there any question that those who don’t survive were living human beings before they were killed?
Late-term abortions, especially when the baby survives, but is then killed by starvation, neglect, or suffocation, show once again the link between abortion and infanticide. The time to stop both is now. As my Administration acts to stop infanticide, we will be fully aware of the real issue that underlies the death of babies before and soon after birth.
Our society has, fortunately, become sensitive to the rights and special needs of the handicapped, but I am shocked that physical or mental handicaps of newborns are still used to justify their extinction. This Administration has a Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who has done perhaps more than any other American for handicapped children, by pioneering surgical techniques to help them, by speaking out on the value of their lives, and by working with them in the context of loving families. You will not find his former patients advocating the so-called "quality-of-life" ethic.
I know that when the true issue of infanticide is placed before the American people, with all the facts openly aired, we will have no trouble deciding that a mentally or physically handicapped baby has the same intrinsic worth and right to life as the rest of us. As the New Jersey Supreme Court said two decades ago, in a decision upholding the sanctity of human life, "a child need not be perfect to have a worthwhile life."
Whether we are talking about pain suffered by unborn children, or about late-term abortions, or about infanticide, we inevitably focus on the humanity of the unborn child. Each of these issues is a potential rallying point for the sanctity of life ethic. Once we as a nation rally around any one of these issues to affirm the sanctity of life, we will see the importance of affirming this principle across the board.
Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the matter: "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other." The sanctity of innocent human life is a principle that Congress should proclaim at every opportunity.
It is possible that the Supreme Court itself may overturn its abortion rulings. We need only recall that in Brown v. Board of Education the court reversed its own earlier "separate-but-equal" decision. I believe if the Supreme Court took another look at Roe v. Wade, and considered the real issue between the sanctity of life ethic and the quality of life ethic, it would change its mind once again.
As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed mothers. I recently spoke about a young pregnant woman named Victoria, who said, "In this society we save whales, we save timber wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles. Yet, everyone wanted me to throw away my baby." She has been helped by Save-a-Life, a group in Dallas, which provides a way for unwed mothers to preserve the human life within them when they might otherwise be tempted to resort to abortion. I think also of House of His Creation in Catesville, Pennsylvania, where a loving couple has taken in almost 200 young women in the past ten years. They have seen, as a fact of life, that the girls are not better off having abortions than saving their babies. I am also reminded of the remarkable Rossow family of Ellington, Connecticut, who have opened their hearts and their home to nine handicapped adopted and foster children.
The Adolescent Family Life Program, adopted by Congress at the request of Senator Jeremiah Denton, has opened new opportunities for unwed mothers to give their children life. We should not rest until our entire society echoes the tone of John Powell in the dedication of his book, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, a dedication to every woman carrying an unwanted child: "Please believe that you are not alone. There are many of us that truly love you, who want to stand at your side, and help in any way we can." And we can echo the always-practical woman of faith, Mother Teresa, when she says, "If you don’t want the little child, that unborn child, give him to me." We have so many families in America seeking to adopt children that the slogan "every child a wanted child" is now the emptiest of all reasons to tolerate abortion.
I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the work of saving lives, "without being a soul of prayer." The famous British Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce, prayed with his small group of influential friends, the "Clapham Sect," for decades to see an end to slavery in the British empire. Wilberforce led that struggle in Parliament, unflaggingly, because he believed in the sanctity of human life. He saw the fulfillment of his impossible dream when Parliament outlawed slavery just before his death.
Let his faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says: "… however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened."
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.
If you’re feeling down about Republican losses in the state of Washington and on the national level, don’t! The following is a speech Doug Parris gave to Republican Roundtable back in May. It is his inspiring vision of what’s to come in the next forty years. (And he is sometimes accused of not "looking at the big picture".) The first phase has already begun. Here is a portion of it:
"…The Collapse of the old media monopoly led to the collapse of the liberal Republican monopoly because people could get the truth. It was no longer possible to fool most of the Party all of the time. Even though they could still control the nomination process RINOs simply quit winning. Conservatives quit being witless dupes for counterfeit Republicans. 2004 and 2006 marked five straight gubernatorial losses and four straight senatorial losses, 70% of those by moderate/pragmatic candidates of the pragmatic GOP…"
Read the rest here.
I haven’t discussed this here yet, and I know it seems early, but before most busy pro-life, rank-and-file Republicans wish to think about it, party leaders and their friends in the media will have already made it impossible for a pro-life candidate to emerge. They will have convinced the public that it is a race between a pro-abortion Republican and a nominally pro-life Republican who doesn’t give a hoot about ending abortion. The Conservative Voice says "To Pro-Abortion Republicans-Thanks, But No Thanks. Rice, Giuliani, McCain."
Back in June, I wrote my thoughts on it, which can be read over at The Reagan Wing. So far, the suggestion from little ol’ me has not prompted the man to make an announcement. He’s focused right now on his re-election for Congress. But I’m not the only one who has made this suggestion. Little did I know in June, that Joseph Farah suggested it in April. There’s a grassroots blog dedicated to the idea. Republicans in Michigan picked him as their top choice in a straw poll over media favorites Giuliani, McCain, Rice and Romney.
Although the man is not particularly known for being an outspoken pro-lifer, his fortitude to stand up–to even his own party–on the issue of illegal immigration is a good indication that he would have no problem putting up the same fight for his position on the Right to Life.
There remains a few hurdles however, for him to win the favor of first, the pro-life movement, and then the Republican party. The pro-life movement will need to get educated on the issue of illegal immigration and discern between the conflicting voices they hear from their spiritual leaders. To get a little sensible advice, check out pro-life champion (and faithful Catholic who often differs with the American bishops, but not with the Pope), Phyllis Schlaffly’s numerous columns on the topic, and I suggest starting with Amnesty/Guest-Worker is Immoral.
If you agree with my suggestion, you can start showing your support with bumper stickers, t-shirts and the like. There is already an online store with some clever slogans. It’s gonna take a grassroots effort to get a nominee like him, because party leadership and the media will never suggest it to us.
(The following is a message from RNC for Life)
Rush Limbaugh, the popular radio talk-show host whose program boasts a listening audience of 10 million people, blasted efforts by Democrats and other liberals to defeat incumbent pro-life Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) and, at the same time, urge passage of a constitutional amendment that would legalize human cloning in the state of Missouri. Rush, in response to a television ad featuring actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson’s disease, asking Missouri voters to cast their votes for Talent’s Democrat opponent, Claire McCaskill, claiming that Mr. Talent would “criminalize” stem cell research.
Rush jumped into the fray, pointing out that the information in the Fox ad is misleading at best, given the fact that Senator talent supports, as do most reasonable people, adult and umbilical cord blood stem cell research which has already yielded successful therapies for more than 70 serious maladies. What Mr. Talent opposes is unethical research that kills living human embryos for their cells. Senator Talent along with the rapidly growing majority of Missourians, opposes Amendment 2, the ballot initiative that would legalize human cloning in Missouri. The Michael J. Fox ad, in which the actor appears showing the effects of his disease (he admittedly omits taking his medication before testifying before legislative committees or doing commercials of this sort in order to demonstrate the tremors associated with Parkinsonism) is designed to lead people to think that voting against Talent and for Amendment 2 would somehow help patients like him, a message that is totally false.
Thanks to Rush for bringing this matter to the attention of his 10 million listeners. In doing so he has put the human cloning issue on the front burner and people are getting the message. His involvement in revealing the truth of what the anti-life forces are up to in Missouri, coupled with the heroic campaigns of pro-life organizations and individuals, has begun to bear fruit.
In response to the Fox commercial, a new ad produced by Vitae Caring Foundation of Jefferson City, MO, http://www.vitaecaringfoundation.org/ will run statewide on World Series Tonight. You can view it here:
The ad features Hollywood celebrity Jim Caviezel who is most well know for his portrayal of Jesus in “The Passion of the Christ,” Patricia Heaton, the popular star of the long-running TV show “Everybody Loves Raymond,” St. Louis Cardinals start-up pitcher Jeff Suppan, Mike Sweeney who plays for the Kansas City Royals, and former St. Louis Rams quarterback, Kurt Warner, who currently plays with the Arizona Cardinals.
The most recent SurveyUSA poll has support for Amendment 2 below 50% for the first time.
In the 9/14/2006 poll, Amendment 2 was winning with 52% Yes, 24% No, and 24% Undecided.
On 10/12/2006, Amendment 2 was favored by 57%, with 27% responding No and 16% Undecided.
The latest numbers (10/24/06) show a dramatic reversal, with Amendment 2 at 45% Yes, 36% No, and 18% undecided.
We have said over and over again that the fate of the human embryo will determine the destiny of mankind. Will human beings at the earliest stage of existence be respected and protected under the law in America? Amendment 2 must be defeated if the answer to that question is to be yes.
Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for exposing the perfidy of the anti-life groups supporting Amendment 2. To all those who are working so hard to defeat it, thank you! For those who wish to help defeat the cloning initiative with a financial contribution, contact Missourians Against Human Cloning and Vitae Caring Foundation.
I just have one issue with your statement. Why should a pharmacist who, according to their professional and moral opinion, objects to prescribing certain drugs, even be required to refer to another pharmacist? Can’t he just tell the patient "IT"S NOT GOOD FOR YOU!"? Is a doctor who objects to performing abortions required to refer the patient to a doctor who doesn’t? But anyway, good for you, Representative Hinkle! Maybe you can help the rest of your Republican caucus understand this issue.