Final Debate Answers Dictator Question

Compared with the second debate, the final encounter between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was mostly a snooze, but we did clear up one point of contention.

Now the American people know who to support if they want to complete the Latinization of the United States and install a tin–pot dictator in the White House just like South of the Border.

hillary-dictatorA vote for Hillary will be a two–fer: She’ll undermine the Constitution while changing the drapes.

Hillary’s answer to a question regarding her criteria for appointments to the Supreme Court cleared up everyone but the media’s confusion. A crucial question since the next president will fill one open seat and potentially two to three more as leftist hacks move on to the final venue.

In 416–words Hillary didn’t bother to mention the Constitution until the next–to–last sentence and even then it was an incorrect procedural reference to the confirmation process.

Instead of appointing judges who will defend the Constitution, her goal is to make the Supreme Court a mini–legislature where she determines the membership and the decisions.

Even worse, Hillary — like other tin–pot dictators — intends to tell judges how to rule BEFORE she appoints them. The Clintonista judiciary is to “stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, [and] will stand up and say no to Citizens United.”

That’s not a litmus test — those are marching orders.

Hillary’s philosophy is a fundamental perversion that overturns a constitutional order dating from the founding and the rule of law itself.

The law is not to be a respecter of persons, or as Leviticus 19:15 instructs: “[Judges] shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”

The role of the Supreme Court is to apply the law, in this case the Constitution, to the case at hand, regardless of the social standing or sexual preference of the individuals involved in the case. Lawsuits aren’t handicapped like horseraces. A judge doesn’t give a poor minority the benefit of the doubt; he gives him the benefit of the law.

Hillary’s whims will determine what is constitutional and what is not. Take her differing views of two court decisions. Roe v Wade re–wrote the Constitution to permit killing as long as the victim was under a certain age.

Citizens United held that money in campaigns was a form of speech and laws passed by Congress that banned this speech/money violated the 1st Amendment. At that the ban only applied to certain commercial enterprises. Corporate money was banned, but union money — just as commercial — was not banned, since that money helped elect Democrats.

Both decisions can theoretically be overturned by a future court, as long as it’s not a Clinton court. Hillary says Roe v. Wade “guarantees a constitutional right” to abortion, as if the wording is actually part of the document, while Citizens United is a decision “[judges] must stand up against.”

If you are interested in learning how Hillary’s philosophy of appointing judges whose first loyalty is to the left and not the Constitution works in practice just look at the situation in Venezuela. Bloomberg News reports strongman President Nicholas Maduro has used his appointed judiciary to block a citizen–generated recall vote guaranteed in the country’s constitution.

Maduro’s unilateral edicts and the political situation is eerily similar to ours: “Even after losing power in Congress 10 months ago, Maduro has managed to stifle constitutional attempts at removing him …In coordinated actions, courts in five pro­government states suspended signature collections on Thursday, prompting the national electoral council to halt the process nationwide.”

That ends any hope for a recall vote.

And don’t take comfort in the false assurance that we won’t be facing a recall situation here. Maduro uses his court for routine government, much like Hillary would like to if she gets the chance. Does this divide between the executive and legislative sound familiar? “The legislature and executive remain at loggerheads, paralyzing the democratic process. Maduro even approved his 2017 budget through the supreme court, bypassing legislators.”

A Hillary Clinton administration will be a continuation of eight years of Obama decline, only she will add to the Oval Office collection of office supplies.

Hillary will have a phone, a pen and a rubber stamp Supreme Court.

Advertisements

Tim Kaine: Catholic of Convenience

One surefire way to spot an election year is to check Tim Kaine’s closet. If he’s been rummaging around inside, looking for his clerical collar, someone is going to be voting in November. This time Kaine is being introduced to a new, nationwide electorate as the senator from Virginia joins Hillary Clinton on the Democrat ticket.

tim-kaine-catholic-protestKaine’s role in 2016 is an expansion of his usual Virginia performance as “designated Christian.” His nationwide rollout as the theological counterpoint to Hillary’s aggressively secular reputation generates unintentionally funny coverage. Kaine’s being a Christian and a Democrat is so novel, it’s newsworthy!

The media’s sympathetic coverage treats publicly announcing your belief in God is a disability that successful politicians work to overcome. That’s why a candidate caught with a church bulletin in his briefcase is geometrically more frightening to the Bernie Bros and the rest of the pagan Democrat base than Tim Kaine in a turban and a suspiciously bulky down jacket in August.

Independents are the real target for Kaine and that’s why he’s being introduced to them like he’s a man of the cloth. Already the Christian Science Monitor and National Public Radio have called him a “devout Catholic” and other publications talk about his “[balancing his] catholic faith with Democrat politics.”

Yet somehow over the years when Kaine’s faith is weighed in that balance it always tilts toward Democrat orthodoxy and Christian heresy.

The truth is Tim Kaine is a devout Catholic like Judas was a devout follower of Jesus.

Judas’ willing participation in one big death rent the curtain guarding the Holy of Holies, while Kaine’s equally willing participation in millions abortion deaths rends our social fabric today.

Kaine finesses the Bible and his Catholic church’s prohibition against abortion with the same shuffle that Mario Cuomo tried in the 70’s. Kaine claims to be “strongly opposed” to abortion, but according to the Monitor, “he describes these convictions as personal beliefs. In accord with the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion, he doesn’t think the government has the right to dictate such an intimate decision for women.”

What this means is for Kaine when it comes to deciding how he will respond to the life or death of the unborn a judicial robe trumps priestly vestments.

Kaine is both wrong and actively misleading the public. Deciding to become a vegan is a personal belief. Belief in the sanctity of innocent life is being obedient to the call of Christ. A person who sincerely personally opposes abortion doesn’t have a 100 percent voting record with the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood.

Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis spent five days in jail defending the sanctity of marriage. Tim Kaine doesn’t have the courage to cast five votes to defend the sanctity of life.

There is nothing preventing Kaine from voting his conscience and opposing public funding for abortions. Or allowing Christian organizations to decide what medical procedures the company will cover, but Kaine’s votes are laid before the altar of abortion.

There is nothing preventing Kaine from joining thousands of other Catholics during the Right to Life March, yet the event somehow never makes it on his calendar.

The issues where Kaine does choose to highlight his flexible faith mark him as a Comintern Catholic who has adopted the Left’s “social justice” agenda. In Kaine’s view God needs to get with the program and move faster. Like ISIS, he wants to use the power of government inaugurate a paradise on earth, only without the public executions.

If men won’t change their hearts on their own Kaine, like Hillary, is happy to do it for them.

Marvin Olasky talks about college students functioning in an environment hostile to their belief when he says: “The milder form of surrender is to see the Bible as personally meaningful but irrelevant to public discussion. That’s also destructive to faith in Christ’s lordship.”

The same admonition applies to Kaine.

Kaine is a Catholic as long as it’s convenient. But faith always takes a seat in the back of the bus when it starts to interfere with his career as a Democrat professional politician. It’s time to tell Kaine he can’t have it both ways. If his faith isn’t strong enough to guide his voting record and his witness on issues that affect God’s kingdom, then he needs to leave his clerical collar in the closet and stop clinging to Jesus’ coattails.

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

What If They Held a Primary and Nobody Came?

VA Democrat Ticket: Two charisma–challenged white guys & a carpetbagger.

VA Democrat Ticket: Two charisma–challenged white guys & a carpetbagger.

The Washington Post finally got its primary and in typical leftist fashion, they approved of the candidate selection method that was both inefficient and cost taxpayers the most. Earlier this year the Posties criticized Republicans for using the convention method to choose their nominees — even though Lincoln was chosen by a convention and the Constitution was written at one.

The Post complained the 8,000 delegates that attended the Richmond convention were less than one percent of registered Republicans in the Commonwealth. And in fact, the editorial page was in such a snit over the Republican’s choice of a convention the page “did not make endorsements.” (Which explains all the black armbands on the convention floor being worn by former Bolling supporters.)

But an expensive Democrat primary where less than 3 percent of the voters bothered to make it to the polls is considered a triumph of participatory democracy on the Post editorial page. So now Virginia voters face the daunting prospect of a campaign spent listening to a lily–white ticket, composed of three middle–aged males that are obsessed with women’s reproductive organs.

And that’s just the Democrats!

Republicans in their “closed convention” somehow managed to choose the only minority on either statewide ticket, while a majority of Democrat primary voters refused to select either the Indian running for lieutenant governor (the sub–continent kind, not the Lone Ranger kind) or the black running for attorney general.

And talk about your social issue fanatics! Ralph Northam, the Democrat pick for lieutenant governor, ran a commercial before the primary where all he talks about is abortion. Northam declares, “There is no reason that a group of legislators, mostly men, should be telling women what they should and shouldn’t be doing with their bodies.”

Well that’s pretty definitive. But I have to ask: Does Northam’s declaration cover prostitution? Underage sex? Incest? Female–teacher–on–underage–male sex abuse? Flashing? Where, exactly does Northam draw the line?

Northam supporters keep mentioning that “he is the only physician in the VA Senate” as if that gives him special standing. But Northam is one of those doctors who have a loose interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. In Northam’s office you have to be large enough to hand over the co–pay before you are accorded the rights of a human being.

While Republicans Ken Cuccinelli and E. W. Jackson are talking about creating jobs and growing the economy, Northam advocates de–regulating abortion clinics and fighting passage of a bill that would grant “personhood” status to an unborn baby.

Northam’s ‘an abortion in every pot’ platform is particularly relevant when one remembers that the Posties have declared war on Jackson — who happens to be of the black persuasion — for his accurate, completely true remark that Planned Parenthood has been “far more lethal to black lives” than the Ku Klux Klan.

The WaPost responds by analogizing that, “Abortion rates in the United States are higher for African Americans and Hispanics than for other groups. That reflects the fact that those groups tend to have higher rates of unwanted pregnancies. To blame the incidence of abortion on the clinics that provide abortion services is like blaming stores that sell cigarettes for the fact that too many Americans smoke.”

This analogy is only accurate if the government is buying smokes for the underage and poor, while simultaneously discouraging abstinence.

At the victory celebration, Northam came this close to talking about an issue that would attract independents and soft Republicans, before he lapsed into pube–speak, “This state, in order to have business, in order to welcome people, we need to be inclusive. That starts with stopping the attack on women, the assault on the (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered) community.”

Northam’s obsession with divisive social issues, instead of pocketbook issues, means that if you’re looking for a job in an abortion mill, Northam’s your man, otherwise it’s time to start listening to the Republicans.

Mark my words, during this election the Republican ticket will be talking about jobs, taxes and transportation, while the Democrats travel the state brandishing the bloody coat hanger and accusing the GOP of concentrating on “divisive social issues.” Psychiatrists call it projection.

Meanwhile the WaPost will be doing it’s best to drive E.W. Jackson out of the race. Right now the focus is on financial problems. Jackson was behind on his taxes and has filed for bankruptcy in the past. He is now current on all his tax bills, which puts him ahead of the 1,289 Treasury Department employees who collectively owe $9.3 million in back taxes.

Jackson also regrets his bankruptcy, “It was painful. It was difficult. It was embarrassing. I don’t like the idea of not paying off debts.” Compare Jackson’s situation to that of Democrat nominee for governor, Terry McAuliffe. He convinced the taxpayers of Mississippi to give his GreenTech company $7 million in “growth and prosperity” tax exemptions and another $8 million in grants, loans and land in return for building a factory, creating jobs and manufacturing “green” cars.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “…GreenTech looks to be a lemon…there is no evidence the company is manufacturing any cars…(it) has yet to begin building its flagship factory in Tunica. GreenTech is the latest proof…the political class is adept at hooking up cronies and investors with taxpayer dollars. But creating jobs? No can do.”

Rather than be tied down by bad publicity and previous commitments, McAuliffe resigned from GreenTech and walked away from all obligations, while Jackson stayed to face his.

But Jackson’s real sin, as far as the Posties are concerned, is that he’s a Tea Party conservative. Jackson has escaped the Democrat Leftist plantation, once again pointing out the need for the Fugitive Minority Act (co–sponsored by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) that would return ideological escapees to the Democrats for re–education and relieve the media of dealing with off–message minorities that do not support amnesty, abortion and alternate lifestyles.

Jesus, Another Innocent Man Wrongly Convicted

bitter christian

Few pastimes are more entertaining than witnessing a smug, non–orthodox Jew giving instruction on New Testament theology to Christians. Last Saturday the most reverend Lisa Miller in her Washington Post ‘Belief Watch’ column asked readers, “Is gun ownership Christian?

This puts believers at an immediate disadvantage because Christ did not spend much of his ministry discussing consumer goods. He mentions the odd cloak, fragrant ointment, sword and widow’s mite, but one would not confuse Him with Ralph Nader or other marketplace stalwarts.

Besides, since Miller picks and chooses what she believes in regard to her own faith, she has no problem distorting the Gospel in an effort to draft Jesus into Code Pink.

She begins by completely misunderstanding the significance of Jesus on the cross. Miller writes, “The Christian Lord allowed himself to be crucified rather than fight the injustice of the death sentence imposed on him.” To co–opt Mark Twain; this is an inability to distinguish between lightning and the lightning bug.

On the contrary, it was not a miscarriage of justice. The sentence was the fulfillment of divine justice. Christ willingly substituted Himself on the cross in place of a sinful mankind. God did not alter the terms of the first Covenant with Abraham. There was a price to be paid for man’s rebellion and he decided to pay it Himself. (This refusal to “evolve” on the part of the creator, should give pause to modern “Christian” leader’s attempts to revise and soften the New Testament, but it doesn’t.)

Consequently, Christ was not the earliest recruit for the left’s anti–capitol punishment movement. Christ died for our sins. He willingly paid the price we could not pay and ushered in the New Covenant.

There would be no Christians without Christ’s death on the cross. Even if the Jerusalem chapter of the Innocence Project had tried to get Him off the hook, He would have refused the offer, because to do so would have rendered His work pointless.

After that inauspicious beginning, Miller moves on to the point of her column, “How do such Christians reconcile their stalwart commitment to the Second Amendment with their belief in a gospel that preaches nonviolence?” And then she quotes Matthew 5:39 – “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

This leads me to believe Miller was also not a fan of the excellent movie “Machine Gun Preacher”

Then it left me wondering if I had missed a recent development on the violence front, so I did an online search on “strike AND cheek AND gunfight” to see if there had been a rash of concealed carry permit holders (CCW) lighting up people who slapped them.

That search string was a bust, so I tried “strike AND cheek AND shoot” with the same result. Evidently there is no problem with Christian gun owners initiating violence. Miller’s goal appears to involve persuading Christians to join the ranks of the defenseless. This decision, however, would not be made in a vacuum. Should a Christian head of household decide to disarm because he believes guns are inherently evil, like cigarettes or 16 oz. sodas, his decision would not affect him alone. His wife, his children and mom in the basement would all instantly become draftees in the War for Pacifism.

And the family would be misguided draftees at that. As Adam Clarke points out in his commentary on the passage, these “exhortations belong to those principally who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Say for example, an orthodox Christian that leftists like Miller slap up the side of the head for refusing to support homosexual marriage. Following Matthew, the Christian would turn the other cheek as he said he does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle either.

The verse is most certainly not directed toward ancient or modern Christians with a desire to defend their persons or their family.

Then Miller snidely intimates that “conservative Christian leaders are not falling over themselves to proclaim in public their pro–gun theologies.” But then Miller proceeds to list various Christians who are doing just that.

She takes issue with Richard Land, a former Southern Baptist Convention official, who said during a December interview on National People’s Radio (NPR) that he supports arming teachers. And Miller concludes with David French, senior counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice, who told her “Turn the other cheek does not mean turn your wife’s cheek or turn your children’s cheek.”

Miller — who works for an organization sporting guards who check commoners before they are allowed to enter — replies, “Provocative, but unconvincing. Jesus identified with the weak, not the strong; with the victims, not the shooters (or the people with the guns).”

Wrong again. Jesus praised a Roman centurion who controlled his own sword and 90 others — for his faith, saying, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.” What’s more, Jesus reached out to the weak and the victims, but unlike leftist community organizers, He considered Himself a shepherd and the shepherd doesn’t hand the wolf a napkin as he approaches the herd.

There is another verse that’s very germane to this discussion, although Miller manages to overlook it. Luke 6:42 advises, “Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

Miller would do more to protect the innocent life of children if she would worry less about the imaginary threat of “assault weapons” in the hands of Christians and more about the real threat of “assault doctors*” who are responsible for the deaths of over 1 million innocents each year during abortions.

*Thanks to my wife, Janet, for this inspired term that aptly describes a depraved occupation.

Finally a Democrat on the Right Side of Taxes

The Widow’s mite of Biblical fame.

Tim Kaine — known here as Gov. Flowmax after closing Virginia’s interstate rest stops — occasionally comes down on the right side of an issue. During the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate between Senate candidates Kaine and former Sen. George Allen, Kaine observed that he would be “open” to the idea of everyone paying some level of federal income tax.

Subsequent media and online coverage was dominated by the charge that Kaine wants to tax everyone. Republican websites instantly pounced on the tax statement in an effort to put Kaine on the defensive. This is typical of today’s politics where candidates and consultants go for short–term political advantage at the cost of long term damage to the country.

Readers of last week’s column know I think it’s a good idea for every adult to pay federal tax. Otherwise some enjoy Taxation Without Participation where those who don’t pay federal taxes are happy to vote for politicians who will increase the taxes of those who do.

There is no government free lunch, although it may seem like it as long as the Chinese allow Uncle Sam to run a tab. If everyone pays, then everyone is aware of the cost of government when taxes increase. Normally Democrats oppose this.

The whole idea of some individuals being exempt from responsibility is another of the modern “progressive” ideas that have done so much to damage the nation. “Forward” into oblivion one might say.

Contrast “progressive” tax policy with Biblical tithe policy. God — who one would think knows something about the human heart and fairness — did not exempt anyone from paying their obligation. Luke 21:1 – 4 relates the incident of the widow’s mite: And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, “Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had.”

The widow’s poverty did not exempt her, in fact it served to glorify her. Yet modern man, who evidently has a more finely attuned sense of justice than God, doesn’t think everyone should contribute to the nation’s upkeep. What’s more, the widow paid the same percentage tithe as those in “their abundance.” Proving God doesn’t believe in “progressive” tax rates either, but that’s a topic for another column.

Kaine was also asked if he supports eliminating charitable and mortgage interest deductions. Kaine answered that he supports broadening the base and rather than enduring a political battle over each deduction, he supports setting an aggregate total.

What this innocuous phrase means is Kaine wants the federal government to decide what’s a reasonable amount for you to give to charity. I’m sure if Kaine has his way the federally–approved donation deduction will be somewhere between the widow’s mite that Joe Biden delivers by motorcade each December 25th and the 30 percent Mitt Romney has donated to charity in 2011.

If instituted, the fed’s final decision on what’s allowed will be closer to the 3 to 5 percent charitable average for the US. For Christians who give a 10 percent tithe, this means they will be paying taxes on at least half of the money they donate. Proving Leviathan tolerates the worship of God as long as you save some Mammon for it.

This is a curious policy for a Catholic like Kaine to support, but it’s not the only issue where the former governor has a secular take on his faith. When the subject came up Kaine didn’t come right out and say he supported “abortion.” After all, this wasn’t the Democrat National Convention where abortion is part of the party platform.

Kaine’s genuflection came when he declared support for a woman’s right to exercise “constitutional choices.” But certainly not the “constitutional choice” that allows a woman to carry a concealed weapon. Kaine’s bloodless euphemism is just his feeble attempt to conceal the ugly truth of abortion.

Kaine will tell you that as a Catholic he is personally opposed to abortion, but is not willing to impose his beliefs on others. This is a classic dodge that weaselly Southern Democrats have been using for over 200 years.

Before the Civil War Democrats claimed to be personally opposed to slavery, but unwilling to impose their beliefs on the planter aristocracy.

The outcome in the one case was involuntary servitude, in the other involuntary death. I fail to see any improvement in Democrat philosophy over the years.

It’s a real shame that Tim Kaine is not willing to extend his “open” to everyone paying taxes to being “open” to everyone being born.

 

Dang! I Missed Todd Akin’s Keynote Address

Senate candidate Todd Akin, star of the Republican National Convention.

Life for a Comcast customer can be so frustrating. I’ve just gone 10 rounds with my DVR and the cable guide’s “search” malfunction. And I sit here in abject defeat.

My goal was to program it so I wouldn’t miss Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin’s keynote speech at the Republican Convention. After all, this man has skyrocketed to the top of GOP intellectual circles with his reasoned discourse on the intersection between female reproductive organs and the criminal justice system.

Akin single handedly destroyed the Obama campaign’s communication plan. Instead of continuing to trumpet Obama’s successful record as an engine of jobs creation and economic titan, campaign flaks are now forced to focus on abortion, just like it was the 90’s all over again.

So you can understand why I didn’t want to miss the crowd’s ovation as Akin discussed ovulation. But now Akin’s moment in the sun has come and gone, and I missed it.

Instead I’ve been trying to decide where I went wrong in my initial judgment on Akin. Before the Washington Post, the New York Times and various broadcasting networks made him chairman of the GOP and Romney & Ryan’s running mate, I had considered Akin an egregious violator of one of the cardinal rules for political candidates: male politicians should never discuss a woman’s private parts.

Those organs are mysterious. A combustible mix of plumbing, hormones and resentment, somehow based on perceived male deficiencies in telecommunication and “understanding.”

Which means the specifics of reproduction have no place in a male’s campaign issue grid. Instead one merely acknowledges that babies are conceived through a process that will remain somewhat ill–defined [closely resembling the specifics of my father’s discussion of “the birds and bees”] and then move on to a stirring defense of the unborn child’s right to life.

When Akin said, “From what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare … If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that down,” the comment allowed Democrats to focus on the outrage done to the first victim, the woman, and ignore the outrage they want to perpetrate on the second victim, the unborn child.

This Akin shuffle works to the advantage of “choice” supporters because there is a fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of Democrat insistence on abortion in the case of “rape, incest and the health of the mother.” (Republican fellow–travelers substitute the word “life” for “health” because even they agree “anxiety” on the part of the mother is not sufficient cause for abortion.)

That hypocrisy is found in the contrast between fervent Democrat opposition to the imposition of capital punishment on the rapist and the unyielding advocacy for the application of capital punishment on the unborn. What this does is visit the punishment for the crime of the father on the innocent child — a system of jurisprudence favored by Nazis and Communists, as has been noted elsewhere.

Pro–life supporters have trouble persuading the uncommitted public on this difficult issue because the rape victim is tangible and visible, while the child is at least initially invisible and potential. Fortunately a brilliant television commercial by the Susan B. Anthony List will, I hope, make our job easier.

The spot is titled, “How Will You Answer?” and it is found at: http://www.sba-list.org/ (on the home page click on “How Will You Answer?” on the upper right). The commercial showcases Melissa Ohden who is the survivor of a botched abortion. Her tiny body — or clump of tissue, if you are a Planned UnParenthood contributor — was casually discarded after an abortion. But Melissa was still alive and her faint cries touched the heart of one of the nurses who saved her life by literally removing her from the garbage can.

Ms. Ohden, as far as I know, was not the product of a rape, but she makes the point just the same. Life is life whether conceived in love, violence or indifference. These unborn babies deserve the same Constitutional protections granted to rapists. John F. Kennedy said life isn’t fair and certainly carrying a child to term after a rape qualifies as manifestly unfair.  However it’s nine months of discomfort for the mother as opposed to the eternity of death for the child.

Watching Melissa Ohden tell her story puts everything in perspective, whether the topic is babies that survive a late–term abortion — her specific issue — or those executed after a rape. The ad is currently running in Missouri where one hopes Akin will graciously let Ms. Ohden assume future responsibility for the topic.

As for me, I’m learning all I can about how to program my DVR. I certainly wouldn’t want to miss Akin’s speech at the inauguration.