God Bless This Abortion Mill

(Author’s Note: If you have any question regarding just how badly conservatives and ProLife believers have lost the Cultural Civil War, ponder this: Not a single one of the newspapers and websites that normally run my Cagle Syndicate column ran this one.)

A Maryland abortion mill recently held an audition that was so important the Washington Post covered it. And this wasn’t one of the friendly Planned Parenthood ‘clinics’ where they are so busy providing mammograms, check–ups, flu shots and underage marital counseling that abortion customers practically have to deliver in the waiting room before someone will see them.

This performance was at the Carhart ‘clinic’ in Bethesda, MD. There chief executioner LeRoy Carhart terminates the life of viable, unborn babies up to five months old. Although that limit is self–imposed. In the People’s Republic of Maryland, a woman can execute her unborn child even in the ninth month.

There were four individuals present, each trying to out–do the others in their unqualified support for killing the unborn. What made this audition so newsworthy was all four claimed to be religious authorities. The Rev. Carlton Veazey, Rabbi Charles Feinberg, Rev. Cari Jackson and Rev. Barbara Gerlach were present but evidently the priest of Moloch had a schedule conflict.

None of the four are exactly mainstream clergy, the mainstreamers are the ones across the street leading prayer vigils trying to prevent abortions. Consequently, abortion mills can’t be picky when it comes recruiting spiritual help. If they own a Bible and know where to put the “amen” in a prayer, it’s good enough for the ‘Choose Death’ industry.

Veazey has been described by Tucker Carlson as “an abortion fanatic” who claims abortion “is part of the basic tenet of our church.” Veazey talks less about the photo where he was “in a nude embrace with a woman who had come to him for ‘spiritual help.’” And the Washington Post reporter didn’t inquire into the circumstances of her subsequent suicide and Veazey’s ouster as pastor of the Zion Baptist Church in Washington, DC.

Rev. Jackson is a ‘married’ lesbian and Rev. Gerlach is a widow and old–time feminist. None of the four currently have a church or synagogue that provides a salary. If they were going to generate any paid speaking opportunities from their butcher shop blessing, news coverage would be crucial.

They began with spurious ‘religious’ justifications for abortion that reeked of modern misplaced moral authority: Achieving the goal comes at someone else’s expense. In this instance, the baby.

Veazey proclaimed, “Keep them safe and keep them strong. And may they always know that all that they do is for Thy glory.” Feinberg was reassuring, “Judaism has always said abortion is never murder. It may not be permitted, depending on the circumstances…but it is never murder.” True as far as it goes. Feinberg failed to note one of those times abortion is not permitted is after 40 days. Up to 40 days a woman can go to any abortion clinic, instead of Carhart’s Last Gasp Gynecology.

After 40 days the only Jewish justification for abortion is to save the mother’s life. And saving women from homicidal ‘clumps of cells’ is exactly what late–term abortion apologists would have you believe Carhart does.

Only that’s not true either. The abortion–friendly Guttmacher Institute published a study that found “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” Late–termers get an abortion for the same reason first trimester women get one, only they aren’t as prompt or organized.

The other justification is late–term abortions are ‘only’ 2 percent of the total, which sounds small until one realizes in 2013 there were a total of 664,435 abortions reported to the feds. Two percent of that appalling total is 13,288 unborn children killed and as National Review points out, “To get a sense of scale, consider that the CDC reports that gun homicides claimed the lives of 11,208 people in the US that year.

Jackson may have won the audition with her rousing declaration, “We give honor to all of these women who choose to come to this space. We sanctify this space, and we honor this as holy.”

That proves these vile people most certainly not in the service of either God or Jesus Christ who said in Ecclesiastes 11:5: “As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child, even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.”

During the last 100 years the world has experienced two Holocausts. A quick one by the Nazis that killed in excess of 6 million Jews and a gradual accumulation of 60,166,484 unborn children killed by abortion since the Supreme Court decided Row v. Wade in 1973.

And when comparing the two one conclusion is inescapable: As bad as the Nazis were, to my knowledge, they never had a pastor bless the ovens.

Advertisements

The #MeToo Movement and Mike Pence

If women had only known all it took to shatter the glass ceiling was to accuse your boss of sexual harassment, workplace history would have been very different! Of course — much like a frontal assault on a machinegun nest — the first over the top aren’t getting the plum jobs, but their sacrifice makes it possible for rear echelon women to either achieve or guilt their way into the ‘C’ suites.

The bosses were all for wiping out the barriers that produced a serviceable work–life balance if it meant women were handy 24/7. For them, taking work home meant road testing the new intern.

All this is why it was so refreshing to find a man in a powerful position who had strict rules regarding workplace harassment. More important, he followed those rules to the letter. That meant he was permanently immune to Gloria Allred–type ambushes at Groping Gulch.

Those rules keep his reputation intact and, equally important and often overlooked, the rules keep the reputations of the women who work for him equally intact. His is an office run on performance and not pheromones.

In short, this man is nothing short of a paragon workplace ethics and respect for women. So, you can imagine my surprise when I visited the websites of the National Organization of Women, Emily’s List, the Feminist Majority and even Jezebel and found zero recognition for this pioneer in establishing workplace boundaries.

I soon got the impression you’d see Mitch McConnell attend a Roy Moore Victory Party before these feminist organizations would recognize Vice President Mike Pence.

Way back in March of this year, before our current runaway testosterone tempest, the Washington Post breathlessly announced that Pence had strict rules for his office. The commandments banned Lauer Locks on his office door, because he didn’t hold closed–door meetings one–on–one with women. No intimate after–work dinners with single women either and no attendance at functions where alcohol is served if his wife isn’t there with him.

Pence wouldn’t even wear a hotel bathrobe unless there’s a swim suit under it and he’s at the pool with his family.

Think of it. Following these four simple rules would have kept potted plants unmolested by sperm donors and saved the jobs of Harvey Weinstein, Leon Wiesletier, Michael Oreskes, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Halperin, Garrison Keillor, Glenn Thrush, Harold Ford, Jr., Joe Barton, Al Franken, John Conyers and the rules probably would have salvaged Trent Franks, because I doubt he would have popped the surrogate question in a general staff meeting.

Optimist that I am, I even think if Bill Clinton had followed the rules Hillary would be a happier woman and Chelsea might have a sibling.

Think of the relief it would bring to a young woman knowing she could spend time with her boss without being sent an unsolicited souvenir cellphone photo of the star attraction or a brief personal exercise video after she got home.

Maybe the response of women at leftist media institutions was caused by the Stockholm Syndrome for it was uniformly negative. You’d have thought Pence had stated sex was determined at birth, rather than by a family meeting sometime around age five.

The truth is the feminist and sophisticate reaction to Pence’s refusal to sexually harass women or put them in an awkward situation was so extreme you’d have thought Charlie Rose invited them to join him in a three–legged race around his desk.

The LA Times asked, “Mike Pence won’t dine alone with a woman who’s not his wife. Is that sexist?” An angry UCLA gender professor (is there any other kind?) dredged up by the Times thundered, “I believe this is gender discrimination. If you don’t go out to dinner with a woman, it’s hard to have a woman be your campaign manager or your chief of staff or whoever you need to regularly meet with.”

Although I think she’s confusing a caterer with a campaign aide.

What woman in her right mind would want to miss the chance to network with Harvey Weinstein’s hands?

And Aaron Blake, a male at the Post jockeying for the role of feminist fraternizer, sniffed Pence’s rules “reeked of sexism.” Which I would think beats reeking of John Conyers’ cologne, but that’s just me.

And Vox, which is currently conducting an in–house purge of its own sex harassers, was ready for a special persecutor, “Vice President Pence’s ‘never dine alone with a woman’ rule isn’t honorable. It’s probably illegal.”

And I could find no evidence of any OpMedia change of heart.

All this leads me to conclude as far as our leftist cultural arbiters are concerned, when it comes to sexual harassment, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

I’m Glad I’m Not an Alabama Voter

More specifically, I’m glad I’m not an Alabama conservative. The choice confronting conservatives in the December 12th special senate election is very difficult. But not so tough that our cultural arbiters aren’t eager to give conservatives and Christians the benefit of their wisdom.

The same Opposition Media—Pundit—Celebrity nexus that didn’t condemn Teen Vogue for its recent issue introducing young girls to the “joys” of anal sex, is now urging Christians to vote “their convictions.” This is certainly a welcome change from being characterized as figures of fun who dabble in hate, but I’m still skeptical of the OpMedia’s sudden admiration for our sterling character.

Particularly when they urge us to choose a candidate based on moral beliefs the OpMedia routinely mocks and derides. Our media betters want Christian voters to pick an ideal candidate. Someone who would look good in a Baptist pulpit, instead of the left’s hotel bathrobe.

Naturally, their choice is Democrat Doug Jones instead of hands–on Republican Roy Moore. The argument isn’t all that compelling, particularly when one recalls all of Roy Moore’s alleged victims survived, whereas Democrat Ted Kennedy’s didn’t.

This election is also noteworthy in that it reverses the usual nose–holding option conservatives confront. I recently wrote how I was tired of being told to hold my nose and vote for country club conservatives. The Republican establishment would patiently explain that even though this spineless weathervane could never be depended upon to fight for bedrock conservative issues, he would be marginally better in office than his leftist opponent, since he’s a sure vote for Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader.

This year conservatives have a chance to vote for a somewhat tarnished candidate that will fight tooth and toenail for conservative causes and the establishment tells us to forget about that nose thing and just vote Democrat.

From the beginning I was suspicious of the alleged underage abuse allegations against Moore. I’ve worked in campaigns for over 40 years and timing is a key factor in the negative side of the campaign. I’ve been the media consultant for races where we had devastating information regarding the opponent and we sat on it for weeks or months until such a time as the information could be released and the opposing campaign would not have time to recover.

I suppose I could accept the Washington Post’s claim that their scoop on Moore was generated in–house and not handed to them on a platter like the Russian Dossier. Only, if the stories about Moore’s alleged behavior were “common knowledge,” why did the knowledge only become common nationwide after Moore defeated Luther Strange and it was too late to put someone else on the ballot?

That convenient timing looks like a premeditated decision to hold the story and thereby influence the election. Then there’s the yearbook signature that’s an exact copy of the Judge Moore signature on the woman’s divorce decree from years later, but bears no relation to his unofficial personal signature at the time the yearbook was supposedly signed.

The OpMedia is doing its part to make voting Democrat less painful for wavering conservatives and Christians. Why Democrat Doug Jones’ middle name is ‘Moderate’ according to his glowing press clippings. He’s going to focus on jobs, education and infrastructure. There’s zero mention of Jones being the frontman for a George Soros–funded effort to politicize US Attorneys.

According to Breitbart, the Soros–funded effort supported ‘ending mass incarceration’ and its report — authored by Jones — used language similar to the Obama Justice Dept. effort to grant de facto amnesty to illegal aliens.

Running in the middle and governing from the left is common for Democrats. Last election Virginia had its first transvestite candidate for the House of Delegates. This man in woman’s clothing assured voters that he also intended to focus on meat–and–potatoes issues like transportation.

You can imagine voter’s shock after he won when they learned his first issue in Richmond would be forcing insurance companies to cover ‘gender transition’ and ‘gender reassignment’ surgery. Evidently, the road our shift–shifter was most interested in improving was the one between his house and the gender–bending clinic.

Alabama voters will see the same transition when Jones gets to Washington, absent the pronoun switch.

As far as I’m concerned, the voting decision for Christians comes down to a single comparison. Roy Moore may or may not have fondled babies 40 years ago, but if Doug Jones gets to Washington he’ll be voting to kill babies and fund Planned Parenthood from day one.

That’s why if I were an Alabama voter I’d choose Roy Moore now and support a conservative opponent in the 2020 Republican primary.

Russell Moore: A Baptist Shepherd Who Doesn’t Care Much for His Sheep

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, may not have to suffer deplorables gladly for too much longer. This week he met with the head of the SBC’s executive committee to discuss his estrangement from the 81 percent of Evangelicals who voted for President Trump.

Moore survived the meeting, but I wouldn’t advise asking for money to redecorate his office next year.

To his credit Moore is a staunch defender of marriage, the unborn and the Bible’s instruction on homosexuality, but his grasp of other culturally relevant theology is spotty at best. When Moore discusses illegal aliens, race and politics it sounds like New York Times Revised Version.

Moore is so out of step on those topics I’m surprised he wasn’t invited to be a speaker at the Herd of Heretics conference sponsored by the Virginia Baptist General Assembly, details here.

Moore could probably finesse those issues if he wasn’t such a Pharisee concerning Trump. He was and is a loud and incessant Never Trumper. As former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee observed, he’s “utterly stunned that Russell Moore is being paid by Southern Baptists to insult them.”

Moore cast a write–in ballot for president, observing, “If you lose an election you can live to fight another day and move on, but if you lose an election while giving up your very soul then you have really lost it all, and so I think the stakes are really high.”

Moore can enable the victory of a candidate who believes the unborn have no rights without getting so much as a smudge on his angelic robes, but voting for Trump means your soul is powering the HVAC in Trump Tower.

To learn more about Rev. Moore the White Guilt pastor and the response of Deplorable Baptists to his hectoring you’ll have to click on the link below and finish reading at Newsmax.com.

https://www.newsmax.com/MichaelShannon/baptist-evangelical-sbc/2017/03/14/id/778689/

 

Virginia Baptist Leaders Busy Betraying Their Base

When North Korea sentences a juche follower to a re–education camp at least the ride is free, but when the Baptist General Assembly of Virginia urges members to enter a re–education camp the charge is $79.00.

church-of-uncertainIn the past BGAV’s Disaster Response teams performed a valuable service and Christian witness. During my training session we were told BGAV sent mobile kitchens during Baltimore’s unrest to prepare meals for police and National Guardsmen.

I’m not sure that will be the emphasis in the future. Judging by the BGAV’s latest outreach partner, the next time mobile kitchens head for Charm City it will be to feed the rioters.

In March Virginia’s supposedly conservative, orthodox Baptist leadership is sponsoring the Mid–Atlantic Regional Justice Conference: Motto — “Be the Change.”

Jesus was notorious for demanding his disciples change everything, including names. But I seriously doubt Evangelicals who voted 81 percent for Trump are going to be willing to change allegiance to George Soros on the say–so of the hard–left cadre staffing the conference.

I’m trying to picture the church ladies who attended my disaster–training enjoying these conference sessions:

  • “God’s Word on Immigration” — Dr. John W. Herbst
  • “A Biblical Framework to Approach Immigration — Dawnielle Miller
  • “Race Coded America: Exploring Ways the Church Can Lead in Decoding a Race–Driven Society” — Antipas Harris
  • “Beyond White Guilt: Strategies for Talking With White Christians About Race” — Daniel Willson
  • “Set the Prisoners Free: Mobilizing the Church to End Mass Incarceration” — Shawn Casselberry

On the plus side, after sitting through those harangues attendees will have enough personal guilt to convert to Catholicism, if they remain Christians at all.

If this were a Unitarian or Unite conference it would make perfect sense, but Baptists? The agenda, Biblical beliefs and political orientation of the conference apparatchiks are completely at odds with every Southern Baptist church I’ve attended.

In many instances what these practitioners believe is heresy in any mainline Baptist church.

I have a strong suspicion the one word Dr. Herbst thinks God speaks on immigration is “amnesty,” particularly since he’s a religion professor that evidently doesn’t believe the unborn have a “God–given right to life.” Amnesty is also pretty much a sure thing for Miller who writes for G92.org. Slogan: “Immigrants Aren’t Illegals.”

Harris has a surprise in store for law–and–order conservatives since it’s his belief there’s a strong link between support for capital punishment and lynching. Even being opposed doesn’t let white Baptists off the hook for a hanging judge like Harris. He contends, “…generations of white privilege and black under-privilege have shaped society such that whites are often numb to the reality of their disproportionate privilege to blacks.”

So take that, white Obama voters.

Something tells me Willson isn’t really quite ready to go “beyond white guilt.” His Facebook page reveals an aggressive leftist who despises Trump supporters. He contends, “The rise of evangelical support for Donald Trump reveals, quite visibly…the dearth of compassion among American Christians.”

If Willson ever gets tired of the church, he can always minister to “Occupy.” He’s described as a “Red Letter Christian” and red is right. Willson is “pro–choice,” supports homosexual “marriage” and is active in the anti–police Black Lives Matter movement.

Casselberry is another leftist eager to start the ball rolling on after–election reconciliation. His poem “American Delusion” says it all:

The American dream is an illusion

Land of opportunity?

a Trumped up delusion

A legacy of terror we still refuse to see

Land of the free?

Home of the slave and the lynching tree.”

Officially sponsoring a conference where devoted, church–going Baptists will be dropped into a cauldron of seething leftists is so unbelievable I thought maybe the decision to join this collection of cultural Marxists was the action of a young staffer who didn’t know better and had to justify the “COEXIST” sticker on her car.

So I repeatedly called BGAV Exec. Director John Upton to find out if sponsorship was simply a failure to do basic research. Unfortunately Upton has fallen victim to the form of pride that says since I’m doing God’s work, there is no need to observe minor social niceties. Upton refused to speak with me and explain BGAV thinking.

The official BGAV sponsorship of a divisive, anti–American, heresy–spouting group of propagandists is an insult to the believing Baptists who fill the pews each Sunday and donate to missions.

Believers typically assume denomination leadership reflects the Bible as it’s written and the wishes of the membership. That’s not always the case. In Virginia it’s time to stop being as innocent as doves and start being as wise as serpents. A good place to begin would be by withholding personal and their churches’ financial contributions to the BGAV.

Trump Incoherence Spreads to Pro–Life Supporters

Pro-Life-3-being-pro-life-5715537-460-527It’s rare to discover an individual in public life whose verbal gaffes are so contagious they spread to the normally circumspect, but Donald Trump has that effect on people.

Trump was giving one of his let–it–all–hang–out interviews during a townhall conducted by Chris Matthews. Poised like a drunken Wallenda, Trump teetered from question to question. This time the slip was abortion — after all it was MSNBC. Trump was asked his stance on “reproductive health.” This is a term used nowhere outside the abortion industry and evidently it means escaping any consequences that might result from a woman’s poor decisions.

Trump said he’s pro–life with three exceptions: Rape, incest and the life of the mother.

Matthews pressed and asked what Trump thought the law should be regarding abortion. If Trump would cut into his tweeting time for a couple of hours to take a basic media training session, questions like this are easy. He simply says, “Chris, I just answered that. I think abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother. And I think the federal government should leave the specifics to the individual states.”

Since preparation is not a word normally associated with Trump, he didn’t give that answer. Instead he wandered down a series of dead ends and rabbit trails until Matthews demanded, “…should the woman be punished for having an abortion?”

Instead of replying, “Chris, that’s a hypothetical question and answering it should be left up to the individual states,” Trump does a Lewandowski and says yes, there has to be some form of punishment for the woman. He didn’t specify if it should be fines, jail time or five minutes with his campaign manager.

Trump’s discourse on women has included sexual orientation, BMI index, adultery and that time of month, so reproduction was just a matter of time. What was interesting about opening up this new front in the war on women was the panic he caused in the pro–life community.

Mike Huckabee, a Trump supporter, said he “found myself just recoiling. I never have heard that we want to punish the woman. She’s punished enough.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, declared, “…punishment is solely for the abortionist who profits off of the destruction of one life and the grave wounding of another.”

Yet both of these statements are morally incoherent.

By this reasoning, if a mother drives her two–month–old unborn child to the abortionist to have it killed she is in no way culpable, but if she waits and drives her two–month–old baby to the executioner she’s guilty of murder.

That’s exactly what the pro–abortion lobby says! It contends rules are different for humans until they cross the plane of the cervix — and if you’re Obama, not even then since that’s another border he doesn’t recognize.

Or as Hillary so delicately put it: “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

Please name me another category of law breaking, other than immigration, where you can aid and abet the commission of a crime and not be held criminally liable. These abortion doctors aren’t cruising La Leche meetings slipping Rohypnol into the punch. At the very least these women are co–conspirators.

And don’t bore me with protests about the inseminator. If the male is as much as part of the killing process as he is of the creation process, then hook him up, too.

Jim Sedlak, vice president of the American Life League, says that pre–Roe he can find no evidence a mother was ever prosecuted for having an abortion. His organization’s position on future law is much more logically consistent regarding the culpability of the mother.

“Our basic position is that if abortion is made illegal then the intentional killing of the human being in the womb would be homicide and it should be treated like any other homicide. The local DA would determine who is culpable and who isn’t. In most of the cases we would assume the mother would not be prosecuted. But let the law take its course.”

Giving mom a free pass is more sympathetic and gets you better media coverage, but it’s not consistent and it’s not the truth. To paraphrase Randy Alcorn: Truth without mercy breeds self-righteousness and legalism. Mercy without truth breeds deception and moral compromise.

Tom Coburn Will Be Missed By Conservatives

This is Sen. Tom Coburn’s last year in the Senate. It would have been his last term anyway, because he’s an honorable man and adheres to his term limits promise.

He first ran for the congressional seat held by a buddy of mine from college: Mike Synar. I would not have supported Coburn because at that time I was a deluded Democrat. Fortunately I changed and he didn’t.

Complete details are in my latest Newsmax Insider column, link below.

Remember you don’t have to fall in love with the column to post a link on your Facebook page, like it or tweet about it. I can use the readers and Newsmax doesn’t make it easy to find me.

(Sometimes I’m just happy if readers don’t want to enter Ebola quarantine after finishing it.)

Here’s the link: http://tinyurl.com/ows3wob

Abortion As Performance Art

Tough choice for Exhibitionist of the Month: Emily Letts or Michael Sam?

Tough choice for Exhibitionist of the Month: Emily Letts or Michael Sam?

A New Jersey execution was recently videotaped and posted on YouTube. Instead of using a simple, painless pill authorities in New Jersey opted for an invasive mechanical method that took longer and carried risk. Yet the resulting video was awarded a prize and greeted with shouts of joy by the left and other cultural arbiters.

For those coming to this story late, Emily Letts is the new face of abortion after taping hers and winning the Abortion Care Network’s Stigma Busting video competition. Letts is an actress with three IMBD credits (‘Hallows’ Eve,’ ‘Ivy’ and ‘Clap on Clap Off’) and since Capital One wasn’t exactly beating down her door to flog credit cards, Emily opted to raise her profile by endorsing death.

Of course this doesn’t rule out a call from Capital One in the future, Emily just has to make sure she doesn’t offend the Gaystapo.

Letts is a ‘patient advocate’ at the Cherry Hill Euphemism Factory in New Jersey. Whoops, make that ‘Women’s Center’ — but only if the woman taller than a travel mug. When Emily became pregnant she didn’t think of her abortion as losing a child. It was gaining the role of a lifetime!

Letts’ wrote an explanation in Cosmopolitan that gives insight into a shallow, confused individual for whom an abortion is a good career move. She explains, “I was a professional actress for many years. I loved acting, but I felt fairly depressed most of the time…I felt completely alienated from myself and everyone else because I was intent on being successful.”

In reality Letts was lost and deeply disturbed, but she did have a friend “who was a birth doula, and she fascinated me with her stories about giving birth and growing life.” (For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a doula is a type of life coach, except I don’t think they use LinkedIn and their cards are always recycled from sustainable trees. Doulas are frequently found cluttering up delivery rooms or cheerleading during a home birth.)

So after being exposed to the wonders of life, Emily decides to become a volunteer sonderkommando working in an abortion mill.  Maybe because she avoids long–term commitments and didn’t want to agonize over buying age–appropriate birthday presents.

Letts job is to support and reassure women during the abortion process, turning a grave sin into something like pre–emptive liposuction. After she went to work for the center, “I fell into this perfect world that fulfills me in so many different ways.”

By day Emily counsels women — somehow the advice is always to kill the baby — and dispels rumors surrounding the abortion process, because in her words, “The misinformation is amazing. And she helps women rationalize the consequences their decision by stressing, “they are still wonderful and beautiful.”

By night she’s personally tormented by rumors and misinformation regarding the pill. “(H)ormonal birth control scared me because of complications I’d heard about from friends — gaining weight, depression, etc.” That’s why Emily adopted the rhythm method and prevented awkward, calendar–based inconvenience by sleeping around and avoiding long–term partners.

Then she became pregnant. Here the timeline in her story becomes vague. Outsiders have to consider four distinct actions while evaluating “her story.”

1. Finding out about the Abortion Care Network’s video competition.

2. Discovering there were no videos that featured a woman going through an abortion and happy about it.

3. Getting pregnant even though Emily checks her ‘Ovulation App’ almost every day.

4. Starring in Emily Gets Her Abortion a mere two weeks after learning she was pregnant.

I suppose the order could have been 3 – 2 – 1 – 4, but somehow I doubt it.

After finally getting top billing in a movie, Letts video commentary proves she needs help, the kind unavailable at the ‘Women’s Center.’ During the video Emily says she’s “in awe that I can make a baby. I can make a life.” After which she snuffs it out like a candle, while bizarrely humming during the abortion.

A reporter writing for the UK’s Independent was impressed. “In filming and sharing her experience with the world, Letts has not only dragged from their caves the dank and sordid unmentionables who still think a woman a murderer for choosing her own life over a cluster of cells, she has shown that an abortion can be a positive experience.”

Unfortunately for the reporter, we are all a “cluster of cells” it’s just some clusters are larger than others. Evidently somewhere deep inside a conflicted Emily knows that too, because she also says, “I still have my sonogram, and if my apartment were to catch fire, it would be the first thing I’d grab.”

Our nation’s Media–Entertainment–Cultural opinion setters are an iron triangle of license and irresponsibility that we are supposed to rectify. Last week in Oklahoma it was outraged that a man responsible for murder and multiple rapes experienced some discomfort during an execution held before a handful of witnesses. And now it celebrates a performance art video of the brutal dismemberment of an innocent, unborn child, who was only responsible for being both alive and inconvenient.

After forcing her baby to pay the price for Letts’ own irresponsibility, Emily claims to be entirely free of guilt. “Still, every time I watch the video, I love it. I love how positive it is.”

Emily Letts is lost and in need of our prayers, but she’s certainly not alone.

Hooray for the Death Penalty!

Anti capital punishment memeFor a brief moment I almost believed the mainstream media when I read: ‘Oklahoma Execution of Murderer Went Horribly, Horribly Wrong.’ ‘Oklahoma Governor Calls for Independent Review of Botched Execution.’

My initial response was horror, too: You mean that violent sadist is still alive?!!!

But the execution wasn’t botched. Clayton Lockett is dead, dead, dead and good riddance. The ceremony may not have been esthetically pleasing to capital punishment opponents, but any execution where the murderer winds up dead is, by definition, a successful execution.

According to hysterical coverage by USA Today (Headline: Botched execution could slam brakes on death penalty) “Clayton Lockett, 38, struggled violently, groaned and writhed after lethal drugs were administered by Oklahoma officials Tuesday night, according to eyewitness accounts. State Corrections Director Robert Patton halted the Lockett’s execution, citing vein failure that may have prevented the deadly chemicals from reaching Lockett. He eventually died of a heart attack.”

In a sane world the inefficient Oklahoma execution would slam the brakes on frivolous death penalty appeals. The goal of the left is to step–by–step end capital punishment. First the electric chair was deemed ‘inhumane.’ So government switched to lethal injection. In return the left attacked the chemicals used.

Since no subject has ever walked out of a lethal injection meeting alive, it would appear the original chemical cocktail works fine, but I’m not a judge that grants spurious legal relief. Over the years drug manufacturers have been under relentless legal assault.

Today the proven, effective drug, thiopental, is unobtainable and states are forced to experiment. This is fine with opponents, because rather than taking the blame for banning the effective and humane drug, they shift blame to the state for using a substitute.

Leading to an interesting pharmaceutical contrast. The same political class that is morally outraged by lethal injection, is equally outraged when the state of Oklahoma bans the off–label use of abortion–inducing drugs by requiring doctors only administer the drug in accordance with FDA protocols.

It’s exactly the same strategy the murderer’s lobby uses to prevent the use of thiopental. Yet regulation that saves a truly innocent baby’s life is unacceptable, because it impedes a woman’s ‘right to choose.’ While the other instance is a barbaric throwback to savagery when it restores balance and justice.

In fact Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, made an unintentionally hilarious comment in the wake of Lockett’s passing, “Somebody died because of the state’s incompetency.”

The second contrast involves medical professionals. Doctors with a sense of justice have been prevented from participating in executions by means of a leftist perversion of the Hippocratic oath. State medical societies threaten doctors with penalties and loss of medical license. Yet abortionists have no problem with ‘first do no harm’ during their procedures, even though harm is the goal. As a result executions are conducted by penal employees who may or may not have adequate training.

Which justice opponents also use to attack governments like Oklahoma.

This problem lends itself perfectly to a genuine ‘bi–partisan compromise: let late–term abortion doctors perform really late term abortions on murderers. Of course the left won’t agree.

The campaign against the death penalty has all the trappings of modern gestures of misplaced moral authority: Achieving the goal comes at someone else’s expense.

Arguments against the death penalty have three main components: The death penalty is not an effective deterrent, it is cruel and unusual punishment and life in prison is a more severe than death.

But since when did deterrence become the benchmark for a law’s utility? Prevention is an equally valid way to judge a law’s effectiveness and the death penalty has a 100 percent success rate in preventing future murders. Laws against robbery don’t always deter robbers. Laws against sawed–off shotguns didn’t deter Lockett. And, laws against speeding don’t deter the readers of this column, yet the laws remain on the book.

Death is the final earthy punishment, but that doesn’t make it cruel. Dennis Prager has made a strong case for the moral authority of the death penalty based on the Bible and the fact we are made in God’s image.

The facile counter–argument that ‘eye for an eye’ law no longer applies because of its savagery is historically ignorant. Lex talionis, outlined in Exodus 21:24, is actually a legal innovation that restored fairness in the law by holding everyone responsible regardless of his station in life. Eye–for–an–eye meant that a rich man could not buy his way out of punishment, while the poor man suffered severe consequences as happened in pagan cultures. It made the law truly impartial and just.

The final argument has always been incoherent. If the death penalty is inhumane how can these compassion tourists advocate a punishment that’s worse? Simple, they are lying. I’ve driven by Huntsville prison in Texas more than once and I have never seen inmates hanging bed sheets out of the window demanding they be put our of their misery.

If murderers were offered a chance between death and life in prison, almost every one would choose life. Then murderers would be free to endanger the guards, medical staff and other inmates in the prison, but the exhibitionist left can’t be bothered with that petty detail.

In spite of years of anti–death penalty propaganda in the mainstream media, 55 percent of the public still favors the ultimate punishment. But reporters keep trying. In January Oklahoma executed Michael Lee Wilson with another mysterious drug cocktail. In an effort to elicit sympathy for the unsympathetic reporters say his last words were, “My whole body is burning.”

But I don’t think that was in reference to the execution. I think he was referring to his destination, because not all near–death experiences are glowing lights and fluffy bunnies.

Perry, Paul & Huckabee at CPAC 2014

Gen. John Bell Hood, another Texan that could get a crowd moving.

Gen. John Bell Hood, another Texan that could get a crowd moving.

Gen. Robert E. Lee used Texas infantry as his reliable shock troops during the Civil War. If Hood’s division couldn’t drive the Yankees from a position, then no troops could.

Evidently CPAC schedulers are of the same opinion.

On both of the first two days of the conservative conference Texas speakers were used to soften up the crowd for all the speakers that followed.

On Thursday it was Sen. Ted Cruz (R–TX) and on Friday it was Gov. Rick Perry (R–TX).

Perry hit the stage cold to the tune of AC/DC’s ‘Back in Black’ and did so without anyone to introduce him. Perry is now sporting black nerd glasses that make him look more intellectual without softening him up so much that he looks like pajama boy in the Obamacare ad.

The governor began by stating that on the battlefield of ideas “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” Then there was a long pause, which started to produce debate flashbacks for me, but it proved to be just a slow Internet connection.

Besides being another step on the stairway to political redemption, the speech was a rousing defense of federalism. Perry says for the solution to the problems facing the country we should not look to Washington, but instead we should look to the states that “are laboratories of innovation.”

And the states provide a contrast between two visions. In the blue vision the state “plays an increasing roll in the lives of citizens.” Taxes are high, public employee pensions are out of control and jobs are leaving.

Perry contrasted that smothering philosophy with the red state vision where “freedom of the individual comes first and the reach of government is limited.” There taxes are low, spending is low and opportunity is high.

Then Perry did something surprising. On Friday when Chris Christie spoke the examples were mostly about him and about New Jersey. But that’s not what Perry did. He started off by giving other Republican governors credit for their good ideas and successful records.

He mentioned Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Rick Scott in Florida. Then Perry proceeded to list accomplishments particular to each.

Perry was halfway through his speech before he even mentioned Texas. He spoke first of the common denominator among all red state leaders, “Conservative governors who know freedom of the individual must come before the power of the state…the contrast is crystal clear.” He then used an example from the world of transportation. “If you rent a U–Haul to move your company it costs twice as much to go from San Francisco to Austin as it does the other way around, because you can’t find enough trucks to flee the Golden State.”

Only then did Perry say, “Let’s pick a large red state, shoot let’s pick Texas” as he began listing his accomplishments. This is one of the reasons Perry is so likable: He doesn’t appear to take himself too seriously. He, in contrast to Obama, is not The Great I Am.

His speech was full of humor, substance and energy. Perry has been on the comeback trail now for two years and he’s making progress. His demeanor and energy level is in marked contrast to that of the disastrous 2012 presidential campaign.

I have no way of knowing if he’s a terror to his staff or if he kicks the family dog, but you certainly can’t tell it from his personal appearances. If it wasn’t for his squishiness on illegals, I’d almost be ready to vote for Perry today.

I can’t say that for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Politically Huckabee is simply George Bush who can tell a joke. There are many things I admire about Huckabee: His faith, his conservative social values and his sense of humor in particular. But as president he would be spending at least as much as Bush and I see no indication that he’s ever seriously considered putting Uncle Sam on a diet.

And speaking of diets, Huckabee’s is evidently not going too well. In stark contrast to his former fit self, now if the occasion arose Huckabee could fill in quite nicely as Chris Christie’s body double.

Huckabee’s speech began on a discordant note. He was given the same 10 minutes as Rick Perry, but he wasted some of the time complaining about only getting 10 minutes. In contrast to Perry’s upbeat and dynamic address, Huckabee came off as slightly petulant.

His speech was structured around a series of “I knows” that included, “I know the IRS is a criminal organization. I know that life begins at conception. I know there’s a God and this nation would not exist if He had not been the midwife of its birth.”

He even obliquely addressed homosexual marriage when he quoted Mrs. Billy Graham who said, “If God does not bring fiery judgment on America, God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Huckabee concluded with a final “I know” that brought back memories of his rocky beginning when he said, “I know my time is up and I must go.”

Diet jokes aside, he simply wasn’t a heavyweight on Day Two and if Huckabee is indeed running for president in 2016 this speech didn’t help his case.

Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) was the other major league presidential candidate speech of the day. He had double the time allotted to Perry, yet I don’t think his speech had the same impact. They are two entirely different personalities. Paul comes off as somewhat remote and clinical when he speaks. He certainly says the right things and delivers a polished speech, but he doesn’t have the infectious enthusiasm of Rick Perry.

Personally I wonder how many of the reporters who pronounced Chris Christie as rehabilitated after the response to his speech the day before were around for Paul’s. The packed room was on its feet and cheering before the senator could say a word. Christie on the other hand had a much smaller crowd and response was polite until very late in his performance.

Paul’s speech was about liberty but it was also about sending a message to the Mitch McConnells, John McCains, Lindsey Grahams and other establishment RINOs. Paul asked the audience to “Imagine a time when our great country is governed by the Constitution. You may think I’m talking about electing Republicans, but I’m not. I’m talking about electing lovers of liberty.”

“It isn’t good enough to pick the lesser of two equals,” Paul explained. “We must elect men and women of principle and conviction and action who will lead us back to greatness. There is a great and tumultuous battle underway not for the Republican Party but for the entire country.

Then in a challenge to elected leaders and party supporters alike, Paul asked, “The question is will we be bold and proclaim our message with passion or will we be sunshine patriots retreating when we come under fire?”

Paul then focused on the NSA, data mining and the entire security mindset of the government, which he believes is dangerous. He referenced the Sons of Liberty from the Revolution who stood up to King George and predicted, “The Sons of Liberty would today call out to the president. ‘We will not submit. We will not trade our liberty for security. Not now. Not ever.’”

Getting down to cases with an audience that skewed toward youth and tech savvy, Paul explained, “If you have a cell phone, you are under surveillance. I believe what you do on your cell phone is none of their damn business.”

His other examples of government overreach in the name of security included detention without a trial, individual warrants applied to a class of people, credit card data collection, cell phone metadata and other violations of the 4th Amendment.

The senator stated flatly “Government unrestrained by law becomes nothing short of tyranny.” Then he used Daniel Webster to show the fight for liberty has been an ongoing struggle that must be continued today. “Daniel Webster anticipated our modern day saviors who wish to save us from too much freedom. He wrote: ‘Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It’s hardly too strong to say the Con was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.’”

Paul wasn’t giving so much a speech, as he was Peter the Hermit asking the young people to join in a crusade. He has passionate ideas and beliefs, but Paul’s delivery is simply not as winning as that of Perry. One can be serious without being sepulchral.

It will be very interesting to follow the arc of both campaigns as I see Perry being a bigger threat to Paul than the other Texan, Ted Cruz.