ACT III (of the RLC Convention in 4 Acts): The Last Debate, Rejecting the Principle of Non-aggression.
Scene 2: Bolyard, Choice and Slavery
Here is the nature of the puzzle, the curious twist of words and ideas, that wrapped the RLCWA around its own axle at the State Convention, April 27:
“Liberty,” as we know it, can be broken down into a bundle of “rights” and those rights, taken together, are in essence, the sum of the proper constraints on governments as well as individuals. Government cannot print counterfeit currency nor give the right to print counterfeit currency to a small group of its “friends.” This is the principle of sound money. Government cannot steal your land, nor condone its theft by others. That is the principle of property rights. If we fail to defend any of the fundamental rights we fail to defend Liberty in some measure. We are no longer a “Liberty” movement, but may become something lesser (quite possibly, still something worthwhile, though narrower and weaker, like a 2nd Amendment advocacy group).
The principle, that the RLCWA – by majority vote – adopted at its convention on April 27, the one that signaled that the RLCWA is no longer currently capable of becoming the flagship of the Liberty Movement, is that while it may not be proper for government to kill you nor condone your murder by others, it is somehow okay to condone the government condoning your murder by others. In fact, the convention majority decided that condoning the condoning that the RLCWA does not, itself, explicitly condone, is – in the case of human life – politically beneficial. And while it is true that the assembly did not, by its vote, directly condone murder, many Life Resolution opponents very clearly did condone it in their speeches during the course of the debate, and the majority were convinced to condone condoning it principally (it appeared to this author) by lies told about his opponents by attorney Matt Dubin. [These lies will take the stage in scene 3.]
During the course of most of the Convention its chair – who is also RLCWA chair – Sandi Belzer Brendale, remained laudably neutral. Nevertheless, preceding and following the convention she clearly sided with Dubin and Bolyard and those who attempted throughout the convention to squelch speech and worked to defeat the Life Resolution. In a comment on the Washington United Conservatives Facebook page she blamed the Resolution’s failure on “its sponsors” – whom she would not name – but whom she accused of the evil of insisting on fully discussing it. She went on to assert that NO ONE at the convention was FOR abortion (despite all the rhetoric condoning it). Wow. She just described the ENTIRE abortion rights movement. No one in American politics, in case you hadn’t noticed, is FOR abortion –per se.
The most extreme and fascinating example of simultaneously condoning murder and expressing “contempt” for it, however, came from none other than Dani Bolyard in a speech I still find difficult to believe she actually delivered. I might even have trouble trusting to my own in-person observation of it if we didn’t have video proof (below).
But before we get to it, humor me as the author. Answer this question:
What do the following people all have in common?
The late Ted Kennedy,
Joe Biden, and…
Answer: They’re all “personally” pro-life and politically pro-abortion.
Pro-abortion? YES. But wouldn’t they just say they are “pro-CHOICE” on abortion?
Irrelevant. Whether or not they would personally GET an abortion is not pertinent. Whether or not they “like” the idea of others getting an abortion is not pertinent.
The POLITICAL question before the public, before the Republic, and spread before before the RLCWA Convention on April 27 is/was whether or not the killing of prenatal children should be Legal. If you think it should be LEGAL you are politically pro-ABORTION. If you think it should be ILLEGAL you are pro-LIFE. To just be “personally pro-life” means to be pro-abortion politically. Personal preferences are not political positions. How people feel about tonsillectomies, strawberry yogurt, death by electrocution, or whether or not they would have fun at a Party with Bill Clinton are NOT political questions. It’s how a person stands on PUBLIC POLICY that matters.
Dani Bolyard’s speech on April 27 was very explicit that she loves her daughter and hates the very idea of abortion. But Dani was also very clear that she not only supports the right of other women to CHOOSE to kill their daughters, she also, very explicitly, would support the right of Slaveholders to CHOOSE to own black people if we had it to do all over again.
You heard me right.
I couldn’t believe my ears at the time, but its true. “We’d be making the same mistake Lincoln made,” she said.
Throughout the decades during which I have heard and participated in the debate over the Inalienable Right to Life, its similarity to the debate over slavery has come up repeatedly, but until Bolyard, it was always brought up by the proponents of Life, not proponents of legal abortion. Taking away the legal right of women to kill their own prenatal children is just like taking away the legal right of Southern plantation owners to own black people and Dani thinks opposing those “rights” is “a mistake” in both cases–
the “same mistake Lincoln made.”
Clayton Strang’s Life Resolution, the measure Dani fought in that speech, did not propose any specific legislation, most specifically NO Federal legislation. It simply called for the abolition of abortion as clearly as Lincoln once called for the abolition of slavery.
A first effect of making the Resolution public policy, of course, would be to OVERTURN FEDERAL LEGISLATION that TOOK AWAY State’s rights, specifically the Federal legislation that overturned FORTY-SIX State abortion laws, including Washington’s (then-newly-liberalized) abortion law.
Dani Bolyard is poltically pro-abortion, absolutely and unequivocally, whatever else she is in the privacy of her feelings and imagination.And so, by their speeches, were many of the inexperienced advocates of “staying neutral.”
The RLC’s National assertion of “neutrality” is a lie. There CANNOT be “honest and ethical differences of opinion” when the facts are considered. The nation has, through ignorance, neglect, and murderous greed, condoned the torture and slaughter of innocent children. The Liberty Movement cannot, through the same ignorance and neglect, condone the condoning.
Supporting the legalized ability to have an abortion is not being “pro-Choice.”
What choice does the baby have?
[Editor’s note: Special thanks to Reagan Wing staff videographers for the footage from the convention.]
Previously in this series: