On January 25, George Grant will be the plenary speaker for the annual Tennessee Right to Life rally in downtown Nashville marking the 36th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. The event, held adjacent to Capitol Hill at the Bicentennial Mall from 2-3:30 PM, will also feature Dr. Richard Land and Bishop David Choby. Given the historic challenges to the sanctity of life posed by our new administration in Washington, this could very well be a pivotal moment for the pro-life movement and for our nation. Be sure to mark your calendars and plan to attend this peaceful, prayerful event.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Right to Life Rally
On January 25, George Grant will be the plenary speaker for the annual Tennessee Right to Life rally in downtown Nashville marking the 36th anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. The event, held adjacent to Capitol Hill at the Bicentennial Mall from 2-3:30 PM, will also feature Dr. Richard Land and Bishop David Choby. Given the historic challenges to the sanctity of life posed by our new administration in Washington, this could very well be a pivotal moment for the pro-life movement and for our nation. Be sure to mark your calendars and plan to attend this peaceful, prayerful event.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Dangerous Days Ahead
According to Michael Brendan Dougherty writing in the American Conservative magazine, the Obama administration portends great danger to the pro-life movement. A tidal wave of change will soon hit the arenas of healthcare mandates, federal funding for abortion, and the composition of delegations to UN conferences. Indeed, everything pro-lifers have worked for since Roe is now at risk.
As Francis Stafford recently asserted, Obama’s “extremist anti-life platform is aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic. On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake.”
According to Dougherty, such pessimism is altogether warranted. "Obama’s commitment to serve pro-choice interests means that many of his larger agenda items will have abortion-related components. He has pledged that any healthcare reform package he proposes will require employer-provided plans to include coverage of abortion. He has also promised to overturn restrictions on money for fetal stem-cell research."
But, that is not all. "Obama has unambiguously pledged to appoint pro-Roe justices to the Supreme Court." And then there is the matter of foreign policy. Obama's pledge to reverse the Mexico City Policy “would greatly increase abortions around the world. It would also create a scenario in which American evangelicals and Catholics would be paying for abortion referrals through their tax dollars.”
All in all, Dougherty says, " there is plenty for us to do in the days ahead." Plenty indeed.
As Francis Stafford recently asserted, Obama’s “extremist anti-life platform is aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic. On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake.”
According to Dougherty, such pessimism is altogether warranted. "Obama’s commitment to serve pro-choice interests means that many of his larger agenda items will have abortion-related components. He has pledged that any healthcare reform package he proposes will require employer-provided plans to include coverage of abortion. He has also promised to overturn restrictions on money for fetal stem-cell research."
But, that is not all. "Obama has unambiguously pledged to appoint pro-Roe justices to the Supreme Court." And then there is the matter of foreign policy. Obama's pledge to reverse the Mexico City Policy “would greatly increase abortions around the world. It would also create a scenario in which American evangelicals and Catholics would be paying for abortion referrals through their tax dollars.”
All in all, Dougherty says, " there is plenty for us to do in the days ahead." Plenty indeed.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
$1 Billion to Bail Out the Abortion Industry
Planned Parenthood and the other members of its pro-abortion coalition have petitioned president-elect Obama in a 55-page memo to bail-out it's already cash-rich industry with more than $1 Billion in new infanticide subsidies.
Its requests are not limited to major funding increases, however. They also include repealing policies that have "any limiting effect whatsoever" on organizations from being able to engage in abortion advocacy abroad and enshrining “reproductive health rights” in the legal system.
According to Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser these fiscal demands would actually increase federal spending for reproductive health and abortion by $1.5 billion. She calls it “the big abortion bail-out.”
If Obama's new administration acquiesces, as he has indicated it will, the next four years will herald a new level of global triage and genocide.
Its requests are not limited to major funding increases, however. They also include repealing policies that have "any limiting effect whatsoever" on organizations from being able to engage in abortion advocacy abroad and enshrining “reproductive health rights” in the legal system.
According to Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser these fiscal demands would actually increase federal spending for reproductive health and abortion by $1.5 billion. She calls it “the big abortion bail-out.”
If Obama's new administration acquiesces, as he has indicated it will, the next four years will herald a new level of global triage and genocide.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Steadfastness
"Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:58
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
"Merry Christmas" Planned Parenthood-Style
Pre-paid Christmas gift cards from Planned Parenthood? Are you kidding?
Hardly. According to OneNewsNow, Planned Parenthood of Indiana, one of 99 nationwide affiliates of the infamous abortion conglomerate, has announced it is offering holiday vouchers for its "health care" services or for "the recipient's choice of birth control method," including abortions at its child-killing centers in Indianapolis, Merrillville and Bloomington.
The plan has been widely denounced for "making a mockery of the holiday season." Indeed, according to Mike Fichter, president and CEO of Indiana Right to Life, "The tragedy is that almost 6,000 fewer children will be celebrating a first Christmas this year because they were aborted in Planned Parenthood's Indiana clinics."
But apparently, the industry standard-bearers see little irony in promoting abortion amidst a season that exists solely because, "Unto us a child is born; unto us a Son is given."
Hardly. According to OneNewsNow, Planned Parenthood of Indiana, one of 99 nationwide affiliates of the infamous abortion conglomerate, has announced it is offering holiday vouchers for its "health care" services or for "the recipient's choice of birth control method," including abortions at its child-killing centers in Indianapolis, Merrillville and Bloomington.
The plan has been widely denounced for "making a mockery of the holiday season." Indeed, according to Mike Fichter, president and CEO of Indiana Right to Life, "The tragedy is that almost 6,000 fewer children will be celebrating a first Christmas this year because they were aborted in Planned Parenthood's Indiana clinics."
But apparently, the industry standard-bearers see little irony in promoting abortion amidst a season that exists solely because, "Unto us a child is born; unto us a Son is given."
Monday, November 24, 2008
Hentoff on Obama
Today's Washington Times contains a sobering editorial by Nat Hentoff about the extreme pro-infanticide resolve of the new Obama administration. May God have mercy upon us and upon our nation.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Awful Truth
It is an equally awful truth that four and four makes eight, whether you reckon the thing out in eight onions or eight angels, eight bricks or eight bishops, eight minor poets or eight pigs. Similarly, if it be true that God made all things, that grave fact can be asserted by pointing at a star or by waving an umbrella." --G.K. Chesterton
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Executive (Dis)Orders
Steven Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of a host of important books, monographs, and briefings examining the burgeoning partnership between international politics, bureaucratic environmentalism, and the global abortion industry. His editorial analysis this month takes up the question of what we ought to expect during the first days of the new Obama administration as he implements a raft of promised Executive Orders aimed at jettisoning long-standing pro-life policies. It is not a pretty picture:
Obama's transition team is busily preparing a thick sheaf of Executive Orders for the President-elect to sign the day he takes office. And--in a reprise of what happened when Bill Clinton took power 16 years ago--the pro-life policies of the Bush Administration will apparently be the first to go.
Obama appears set to reverse existing Executive Orders that protect taxpayers from having to fund abortions at home and abroad. Moreover, Bush's prohibition against the vivisection of tiny humans (aka embryonic stem cell research), will almost certainly go by the wayside.
Another pro-life policy on the ideological chopping block involves the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), which unabashedly supports China's inhumane one-child policy.
We know. It was the Population Research Institute whose investigation in China led the Bush administration to cut off funding to the UNFPA for the past seven years. We have continued to monitor the situation in China, and we stand by our assertion that the UNFPA was--and is--involved in coercive abortions in China.
PRI's original report, entitled "UNFPA, China, and Coercive Family Planning," is based on an investigation conducted by PRI researchers in China's Sihui County. Relying on interviews with over two dozen victims and witnesses, the 2001 investigation found that coercive abortion and sterilization practices were taking place in that county where the UNFPA had supposedly instituted a "client-centered and voluntary family planning program." In fact, PRI's investigation revealed that the UNFPA shared an office with the very Chinese family planning officials who were locking up women and carrying out forced abortions.
Prompted by this investigation, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell sent his own research team to China, which independently verified the facts that PRI had gathered. As a result, Powell himself urged that the U.S. government stop funding the UNFPA. Said Powell in a 2002 letter to Congress: "UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion."
President-elect Obama and his supporters blame pro-lifers in the Bush administration for this decision, but it was Colin Powell, who is no friend of social conservatives and who recently endorsed Obama for President, who made this call.
It would be a shame if Obama abandons both the women of China and one of his most high-profile backers in the name of the failed ideology of population control. Americans don't want their money going to an organization--the UNFPA--which works hand-in-glove with China's population control police as they drag women off for forced abortions and forced sterilizations. In protecting American taxpayers from having to fund such atrocities, President Bush made the right call.
Compare Bush's judicious actions to those of his predecessor. Bill Clinton chose the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to sign, in a televised Oval Office ceremony, a series of executive orders undoing the pro-life policies of the Reagan-Bush era. The orders he signed on that day--only his fourth in office--undid the Mexico City policy, allowing tax dollars to flow to abortion outfits, encouraged federally-funded clinics to refer for abortions, forced the U.S. military to provide abortion services, and permitted human embryo vivisection. His oft-stated claim that he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare" was revealed as a sham at that moment.
Bush weighed the evidence before acting, while Clinton overreached. What will Obama do?
Whatever he does, it will cast in sharp relief who Barack Obama really is. Is he the reasonable-sounding moderate who appeared on the televised debates and in those carefully crafted (and ubiquitous) TV commercials? Or is he the radical who associates with race-baiting pastors, unrepentant terrorists, and makes far-reaching promises to Planned Parenthood?
By signing a series of pro-abortion Executive Orders, President Obama will be perceived as governing from the Left. The die will be cast, and pro-lifers will rally against him from that moment. They will start looking towards 2010 to restore some checks and balances on this man they will rightly perceive as a pro-abortion zealot.
Clinton's pollster argued strongly against acting on abortion policy as one of the new administration's first pieces of business, but he went ahead regardless. The debacle of the 1994 House elections for the Democrats began at that moment.
Let us see if Barack makes the same mistake.
Obama's transition team is busily preparing a thick sheaf of Executive Orders for the President-elect to sign the day he takes office. And--in a reprise of what happened when Bill Clinton took power 16 years ago--the pro-life policies of the Bush Administration will apparently be the first to go.
Obama appears set to reverse existing Executive Orders that protect taxpayers from having to fund abortions at home and abroad. Moreover, Bush's prohibition against the vivisection of tiny humans (aka embryonic stem cell research), will almost certainly go by the wayside.
Another pro-life policy on the ideological chopping block involves the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), which unabashedly supports China's inhumane one-child policy.
We know. It was the Population Research Institute whose investigation in China led the Bush administration to cut off funding to the UNFPA for the past seven years. We have continued to monitor the situation in China, and we stand by our assertion that the UNFPA was--and is--involved in coercive abortions in China.
PRI's original report, entitled "UNFPA, China, and Coercive Family Planning," is based on an investigation conducted by PRI researchers in China's Sihui County. Relying on interviews with over two dozen victims and witnesses, the 2001 investigation found that coercive abortion and sterilization practices were taking place in that county where the UNFPA had supposedly instituted a "client-centered and voluntary family planning program." In fact, PRI's investigation revealed that the UNFPA shared an office with the very Chinese family planning officials who were locking up women and carrying out forced abortions.
Prompted by this investigation, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell sent his own research team to China, which independently verified the facts that PRI had gathered. As a result, Powell himself urged that the U.S. government stop funding the UNFPA. Said Powell in a 2002 letter to Congress: "UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion."
President-elect Obama and his supporters blame pro-lifers in the Bush administration for this decision, but it was Colin Powell, who is no friend of social conservatives and who recently endorsed Obama for President, who made this call.
It would be a shame if Obama abandons both the women of China and one of his most high-profile backers in the name of the failed ideology of population control. Americans don't want their money going to an organization--the UNFPA--which works hand-in-glove with China's population control police as they drag women off for forced abortions and forced sterilizations. In protecting American taxpayers from having to fund such atrocities, President Bush made the right call.
Compare Bush's judicious actions to those of his predecessor. Bill Clinton chose the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to sign, in a televised Oval Office ceremony, a series of executive orders undoing the pro-life policies of the Reagan-Bush era. The orders he signed on that day--only his fourth in office--undid the Mexico City policy, allowing tax dollars to flow to abortion outfits, encouraged federally-funded clinics to refer for abortions, forced the U.S. military to provide abortion services, and permitted human embryo vivisection. His oft-stated claim that he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare" was revealed as a sham at that moment.
Bush weighed the evidence before acting, while Clinton overreached. What will Obama do?
Whatever he does, it will cast in sharp relief who Barack Obama really is. Is he the reasonable-sounding moderate who appeared on the televised debates and in those carefully crafted (and ubiquitous) TV commercials? Or is he the radical who associates with race-baiting pastors, unrepentant terrorists, and makes far-reaching promises to Planned Parenthood?
By signing a series of pro-abortion Executive Orders, President Obama will be perceived as governing from the Left. The die will be cast, and pro-lifers will rally against him from that moment. They will start looking towards 2010 to restore some checks and balances on this man they will rightly perceive as a pro-abortion zealot.
Clinton's pollster argued strongly against acting on abortion policy as one of the new administration's first pieces of business, but he went ahead regardless. The debacle of the 1994 House elections for the Democrats began at that moment.
Let us see if Barack makes the same mistake.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Good and Evil
"Goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil." --Robert Heinlein
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help." --Ronald Reagan
"If I knew that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." --Henry David Thoreau
"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely expressed for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent busybodies." --C.S. Lewis
"The most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help." --Ronald Reagan
"If I knew that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life." --Henry David Thoreau
"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely expressed for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent busybodies." --C.S. Lewis
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Real Strong Man
"We are perpetually being told that what is wanted is a strong man who will do things. What is really wanted is a strong man who will undo things; and that will be the real test of strength." --G.K. Chesterton
Thursday, November 13, 2008
To the Work
Why are so many patriotic Americans still underwhelmed and unwowed by the media's Obama-frenzy? Very simply, the fierce divide over vital issues did not dissipate the day after the election. As Mike Huckabee stated on his HuckPac Blog, the Obama election essentially means that the nation must now face five fronts in the LibProg assault on our constitutional liberties:
1. Goodbye, Second Amendment rights.
2. Goodbye, protection for the unborn.
3. Goodbye, diligence against state sponsored terrorism from rogue governments like Iran, North Korea, and others.
4. Goodbye, parental rights as a fundamental right to not be supplanted by the government.
5. Goodbye, holding traditional marriage as one man, one woman for life.
So, while others celebrate, the vigilant patriot is necessarily working at the grassroots level to inform and reform in every arena and at every turn.
To the work! To the work! We are servants of God;
Let us follow the path that our Master has trod;
With the balm of His counsel our strength to renew,
Let us do with our might what our hands find to do.
Toiling on, toiling on,
Toiling on, toiling on,
Let us hope and trust,
Let us watch and pray,
And labor till the Master comes.
To the work! To the work! Let the hungry be fed;
To the fountain of life let the weary be led;
In the cross and its banner our glory shall be,
While we herald the tidings, “Salvation is free!”
To the work! To the work! There is labor for all;
For the kingdom of darkness and error shall fall;
And the love of our Father exalted shall be,
In the loud swelling chorus, “Salvation is free!”
To the work! To the work! In the strength of the Lord,
And a robe and a crown shall our labor reward,
When the home of the faithful our dwelling shall be,
And we shout with the ransomed, “Salvation is free!”
1. Goodbye, Second Amendment rights.
2. Goodbye, protection for the unborn.
3. Goodbye, diligence against state sponsored terrorism from rogue governments like Iran, North Korea, and others.
4. Goodbye, parental rights as a fundamental right to not be supplanted by the government.
5. Goodbye, holding traditional marriage as one man, one woman for life.
So, while others celebrate, the vigilant patriot is necessarily working at the grassroots level to inform and reform in every arena and at every turn.
To the work! To the work! We are servants of God;
Let us follow the path that our Master has trod;
With the balm of His counsel our strength to renew,
Let us do with our might what our hands find to do.
Toiling on, toiling on,
Toiling on, toiling on,
Let us hope and trust,
Let us watch and pray,
And labor till the Master comes.
To the work! To the work! Let the hungry be fed;
To the fountain of life let the weary be led;
In the cross and its banner our glory shall be,
While we herald the tidings, “Salvation is free!”
To the work! To the work! There is labor for all;
For the kingdom of darkness and error shall fall;
And the love of our Father exalted shall be,
In the loud swelling chorus, “Salvation is free!”
To the work! To the work! In the strength of the Lord,
And a robe and a crown shall our labor reward,
When the home of the faithful our dwelling shall be,
And we shout with the ransomed, “Salvation is free!”
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Where to Draw the Line
"If I know anything about the character of God after forty years of study, I know that God hates abortion. And I could never vote for a candidate who supported abortion--even if I agreed with that candidate on every other policy position. If he supported abortion I would not vote for him and I urge you to do the same." --R.C Sproul
"It is an art to weigh the importance of different issues and to come to a godly conclusion. Each of us should have a large amount of tolerance for other Christians who come to conclusions that are different from ours. Rarely will one issue trump all others, though I must say that I will never vote for a candidate who advocates or facilitates the killing of unborn children.” --John Frame
"It is an art to weigh the importance of different issues and to come to a godly conclusion. Each of us should have a large amount of tolerance for other Christians who come to conclusions that are different from ours. Rarely will one issue trump all others, though I must say that I will never vote for a candidate who advocates or facilitates the killing of unborn children.” --John Frame
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Change
America has voted for change with the choice of the most extreme pro-abortion and pro-infanticide president in history--to go with solid pro-abortion and pro-infanticide majorities in both the House and the Senate. As Gradgrind asserted, "These are facts, facts, facts. Cold hard facts."
In light of these facts, "How should we then live?"
The answer is simple: we too must change. We must stand for the sanctity of life as never before, with more courage than ever before, with more compassion than ever before, with more commitment than ever before, with more grace than ever before, with more resolve than ever before, with more creativity than ever before, and with more wisdom than ever before.
In light of these facts, "How should we then live?"
The answer is simple: we too must change. We must stand for the sanctity of life as never before, with more courage than ever before, with more compassion than ever before, with more commitment than ever before, with more grace than ever before, with more resolve than ever before, with more creativity than ever before, and with more wisdom than ever before.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Averted Gaze
Despite Barack Obama's staunch and unapologetic advocacy of homosexual activism and radical pro-abortion policies, new polling by the prestigious research organization, the Barna Group, indicates that the Democratic presidential nominee is making significant inroads among voters who are classified as "born-again Christians."
According to the Barna Poll, Obama is statistically tied, 43 percent to 45 percent, with Republican John McCain among "born-again Christian" voters. "Born-again Christians" are defined by Barna as people who say they have "made a personal commitment to Jesus" and believe they "will go to heaven" because they have "confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior." Based on that definition, 48 percent of all voters in this election will be "born-again Christians."
According to Dave Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group, Christians voting for Obama say they are backing the Illinois senator because they believe he will "do a better job restoring America's reputation" and "handling the economy" and agree with his "stance on the Iraq War." Thus, it appears Christians in 2008 will fulfill Francis Schaeffer's dire prediction in The Great Evangelical Disaster, that "personal peace and affluence" will cause us to "avert our moral gaze" from the "things that matter most" to the "things that matter least."
According to the Barna Poll, Obama is statistically tied, 43 percent to 45 percent, with Republican John McCain among "born-again Christian" voters. "Born-again Christians" are defined by Barna as people who say they have "made a personal commitment to Jesus" and believe they "will go to heaven" because they have "confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as their savior." Based on that definition, 48 percent of all voters in this election will be "born-again Christians."
According to Dave Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group, Christians voting for Obama say they are backing the Illinois senator because they believe he will "do a better job restoring America's reputation" and "handling the economy" and agree with his "stance on the Iraq War." Thus, it appears Christians in 2008 will fulfill Francis Schaeffer's dire prediction in The Great Evangelical Disaster, that "personal peace and affluence" will cause us to "avert our moral gaze" from the "things that matter most" to the "things that matter least."
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Vote for Obama?
Can a Christian of good conscience vote for Barack Obama? There are at least three reasons why I have trouble imagining how the answer to that question could possibly be "yes."
1. Obama's repeated pledge to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act"--a bill that would effectively strike down every guideline, regulation, restriction, and limit on the multi-billion dollar abortion industry in all 50 states.
2. Obama's determined opposition to banning or regulating "Partial Birth Abortion"--a barbaric ritualistic form of infanticide.
3. Obama's repeated and longstanding opposition to the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act"--a position from which even Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League cautiously backed away.
Whatever a thinking Christian's position might be on the war in Iraq, the crisis on Wall Street, the credit bail out, the war on terror, illegal immigration, the failure of government education, or soaring deficients, this bedrock issue must surely take precedence. If we cannot agree to protect this most basic right, the right to life itself, then every other right is ultimately at risk.
1. Obama's repeated pledge to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act"--a bill that would effectively strike down every guideline, regulation, restriction, and limit on the multi-billion dollar abortion industry in all 50 states.
2. Obama's determined opposition to banning or regulating "Partial Birth Abortion"--a barbaric ritualistic form of infanticide.
3. Obama's repeated and longstanding opposition to the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act"--a position from which even Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League cautiously backed away.
Whatever a thinking Christian's position might be on the war in Iraq, the crisis on Wall Street, the credit bail out, the war on terror, illegal immigration, the failure of government education, or soaring deficients, this bedrock issue must surely take precedence. If we cannot agree to protect this most basic right, the right to life itself, then every other right is ultimately at risk.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Obama's Infanticide Lie
Newly discovered documents from the Illinois state archives prove Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly and publicly lied about his opposition as an Illinois state legislator to regulations requiring health officials to provide care to babies who survived abortion.
According to a report by Amanda Carpenter in TownHall, Senator Obama has repeatedly claimed he would have voted for Illinois’ version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) had it included language to protect abortion rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, as the federal version of the bill did, which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. Contrary to what Obama has said however, forgotten records from the Illinois Senate archives show Obama did vote against a BAIPA bill that included such a neutrality clause virtually identical to the federal bill.
This is hardly surprising given Obama's radical commitment to the multi-billion dollar abortion industry in general and to industry leader Planned Parenthood in particular. Nevertheless, the disingenuousness of the press in offering cover for the candidate's deceptiveness is more than a little disturbing.
According to a report by Amanda Carpenter in TownHall, Senator Obama has repeatedly claimed he would have voted for Illinois’ version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) had it included language to protect abortion rights guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, as the federal version of the bill did, which sailed through the U.S. Senate 98-0. Contrary to what Obama has said however, forgotten records from the Illinois Senate archives show Obama did vote against a BAIPA bill that included such a neutrality clause virtually identical to the federal bill.
This is hardly surprising given Obama's radical commitment to the multi-billion dollar abortion industry in general and to industry leader Planned Parenthood in particular. Nevertheless, the disingenuousness of the press in offering cover for the candidate's deceptiveness is more than a little disturbing.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Playing Dirty
Obama and the Dems apparently want to play dirty. How dirty? Well, according to Victor Davis Hanson, about as dirty as any election campaign ever. And that just might prove to be their undoing.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Good Question
CNN's Wolf Blitzer recently asked conservative commentator Bill Bennett what "one question" he would like to ask Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama. Bennett said he would ask the junior Illinois senator:
"Why are you to the left of NARAL, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein when it comes to abortion? Are you really there? I've got to question the guy's moral judgment who doesn't see a problem with killing a baby after it's been born. What is the answer to that question?"
Bennett was of course referring to Obama's fierce public opposition to Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The legislation would have declared all live babies legal persons, which would guarantee them the protection of appropriate medical care--even if they were abortion survivors.
Former Gore campaign manager, Donna Brazile, impatiently interrupted the conversation between Blitzer and Bennett quipping: "Bill, you want to have a conversation about narrow issues … but the American people want to talk about gas prices."
Oh really? Thanks for setting our priorities straight, Donna!
"Why are you to the left of NARAL, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein when it comes to abortion? Are you really there? I've got to question the guy's moral judgment who doesn't see a problem with killing a baby after it's been born. What is the answer to that question?"
Bennett was of course referring to Obama's fierce public opposition to Illinois' Born Alive Infants Protection Act. The legislation would have declared all live babies legal persons, which would guarantee them the protection of appropriate medical care--even if they were abortion survivors.
Former Gore campaign manager, Donna Brazile, impatiently interrupted the conversation between Blitzer and Bennett quipping: "Bill, you want to have a conversation about narrow issues … but the American people want to talk about gas prices."
Oh really? Thanks for setting our priorities straight, Donna!
Monday, September 15, 2008
The End of the Matter
Recently, I was reading through Thomas Carlyle’s brilliant biographical notes on the life and work of Oliver Cromwell when I stumbled across a refreshing insight. According to Carlyle, most serious attempts at social, political, or theological analysis in the modern era are dreary and repetitive affairs of ill-informed “shot-rubbish” and “dry-as-dust” inanities. Instead of throwing the light of understanding on an issue, they are little more than:
“Confusion piled on confusion to the utmost horizon’s edge: obscure, in the lurid twilight as of the shadow of death; trackless without index, without finger-post, or mark of any human foregoer; where your human footstep, if you are still human, echoes bodeful through the gaunt solitude, peopled only by somnambulant pedants, dilettantes, and doleful creatures by phantasms, errors, inconceivabilities, by nightmares, pasteboard norroys, griffins, wiverns, and chimeras dire. There, all vanquished, overwhelmed under such waste lumber-mountains, the wreck and dead ashes of some unbelieving generations, does the truth lie hidden from us.”
In other words, most works of modern analysis are merely the restatement of the obvious, the scandalous, or the insidious. They are negative and mundane simply because tomes of criticism are far easier to churn out than quartos of positive prediction or of constructive hope.
Carlyle’s telling indictment of such “droning melancholy skepticisms” and “dismal torpedo narratives” reminded me that perhaps the most important thing that I could ever say about Planned Parenthood was actually as yet unsaid. It struck me that there was little need for another rehearsal of pro-abortion woes or even another anthem of pro-life resolves. Instead, it seemed to me that the need of the moment is for a clear-eyed pronouncement of ultimate outcomes.
Though I had already come to the end of the matter, I had hardly come to what matters in the end.
The fact is, bad ideas don’t last. Though they seem to regularly torment the human experience across the span of history, their tenure at any one given time is actually quite short-lived. That may be the most important fact for us to grasp about Planned Parenthood—or any of the other modern malignancies that blithely distress this poor fallen world in which we live. But it is a fact that is all too easy to forget in the heat of controversy.
“Confusion piled on confusion to the utmost horizon’s edge: obscure, in the lurid twilight as of the shadow of death; trackless without index, without finger-post, or mark of any human foregoer; where your human footstep, if you are still human, echoes bodeful through the gaunt solitude, peopled only by somnambulant pedants, dilettantes, and doleful creatures by phantasms, errors, inconceivabilities, by nightmares, pasteboard norroys, griffins, wiverns, and chimeras dire. There, all vanquished, overwhelmed under such waste lumber-mountains, the wreck and dead ashes of some unbelieving generations, does the truth lie hidden from us.”
In other words, most works of modern analysis are merely the restatement of the obvious, the scandalous, or the insidious. They are negative and mundane simply because tomes of criticism are far easier to churn out than quartos of positive prediction or of constructive hope.
Carlyle’s telling indictment of such “droning melancholy skepticisms” and “dismal torpedo narratives” reminded me that perhaps the most important thing that I could ever say about Planned Parenthood was actually as yet unsaid. It struck me that there was little need for another rehearsal of pro-abortion woes or even another anthem of pro-life resolves. Instead, it seemed to me that the need of the moment is for a clear-eyed pronouncement of ultimate outcomes.
Though I had already come to the end of the matter, I had hardly come to what matters in the end.
The fact is, bad ideas don’t last. Though they seem to regularly torment the human experience across the span of history, their tenure at any one given time is actually quite short-lived. That may be the most important fact for us to grasp about Planned Parenthood—or any of the other modern malignancies that blithely distress this poor fallen world in which we live. But it is a fact that is all too easy to forget in the heat of controversy.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Small Things
The character of John McCain and Sarah Palin can best be seen in the small things rather than in the big policies--as this amazing Rush Limbaugh Transcript demonstrates only too well.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sarah's Shake-Up
Some pundits have claimed that Sarah Palin has already changed the face of American politics. New evidence of that has emerged in one of the most unlikely places—in the studios of NBC News.
When Palin lamented media bias during her acceptance speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted “NBC.” Yesterday, NBC responded by demoting MSNBC co-anchors, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Instead, NBC News correspondent David Gregory will anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. The stridently left-leaning Olbermann and the combative liberal Matthews will remain, but only as analysts during the coverage.
Apparently, the move came after months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network. But, the open acrimony and last-place ratings during the Republican convention, ultimately did in the pro-abort, anti-war, red-diaper duo.
When Palin lamented media bias during her acceptance speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted “NBC.” Yesterday, NBC responded by demoting MSNBC co-anchors, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Instead, NBC News correspondent David Gregory will anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. The stridently left-leaning Olbermann and the combative liberal Matthews will remain, but only as analysts during the coverage.
Apparently, the move came after months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network. But, the open acrimony and last-place ratings during the Republican convention, ultimately did in the pro-abort, anti-war, red-diaper duo.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Noonan Takes Aim
Peggy Noonan is always brilliant, insightful, and trenchant. Her editorial in today's Wall Street Journal is a case in point. In it, she offers vital counsel to John McCain and Sarah Palen on the eve of the most important speeches either of them has ever made. I sure hope and pray they reads it.
At one point, Noonan writes:
"I do not understand the absence of humor, that powerful weapon, that rhetorical cannon, in this year's campaign. There are a lot of things to say here but let me tell you the first I think of. America is a huge and lonely country. We are vast, stretch coast to coast, live in self-sufficient pods; modern culture tends us toward the atomic, the fractured and broken up. When two people meet, as they come to know each other as neighbors or colleagues, one of the great easers, one of the great ways of making a simple small human connection is: shared laughter. We are a political nation. We talk politics. So fill that area with humor: sly humor, teasing humor, humor that speaks a great truth or makes a sharp point."
And then, this:
"Because Sarah Palin jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale-Gender-Studies sense but the How-Do-I-Reload-This-Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract-Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing--who is really one of them and who is not--and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy. She could become a transformative political presence. So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick. And it's going to be brutal. It's already getting there. There are only two questions. 1. Can she take it? Will she be rattled? Can she sail through high seas? Can she roll with most punches and deliver some jabs herself? 2. And while she's taking it, rolling with it and sailing through, can she put herself forward convincingly as serious enough, grounded enough, weighty enough that the American people can imagine her as vice president of the United States? I suppose every candidate for vice president faces these questions to some degree, but because Palin is new, unknown, and a woman, it's all much more so."
Amen and amen. Hear and heed, McCain and Palen.
At one point, Noonan writes:
"I do not understand the absence of humor, that powerful weapon, that rhetorical cannon, in this year's campaign. There are a lot of things to say here but let me tell you the first I think of. America is a huge and lonely country. We are vast, stretch coast to coast, live in self-sufficient pods; modern culture tends us toward the atomic, the fractured and broken up. When two people meet, as they come to know each other as neighbors or colleagues, one of the great easers, one of the great ways of making a simple small human connection is: shared laughter. We are a political nation. We talk politics. So fill that area with humor: sly humor, teasing humor, humor that speaks a great truth or makes a sharp point."
And then, this:
"Because Sarah Palin jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale-Gender-Studies sense but the How-Do-I-Reload-This-Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract-Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing--who is really one of them and who is not--and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy. She could become a transformative political presence. So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick. And it's going to be brutal. It's already getting there. There are only two questions. 1. Can she take it? Will she be rattled? Can she sail through high seas? Can she roll with most punches and deliver some jabs herself? 2. And while she's taking it, rolling with it and sailing through, can she put herself forward convincingly as serious enough, grounded enough, weighty enough that the American people can imagine her as vice president of the United States? I suppose every candidate for vice president faces these questions to some degree, but because Palin is new, unknown, and a woman, it's all much more so."
Amen and amen. Hear and heed, McCain and Palen.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Grand-Slam Home Run
According to Richard Viguerie, the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running-mate "unites the Republican Party and energizes its Conservative base. McCain has chosen to balance his ticket with a principled conservative."
The hugely influential Conservative grassroots leader, said, "Governor Palin’s life story is one of sticking to principle. She is living proof that a person can take on the corrupt political establishment--including corrupt leaders in her own party--and achieve great things.”
Viguerie added, “There’s an old expression in politics: Go along to get along. Not this time. The selection of Sarah Palin is one big kick-in-the-pants to the corrupt establishment in both parties.
“Congratulations to John McCain for hearing and responding to conservatives. Conservatives, the base of the party, have been listless. But, now, nearly all will work enthusiastically for the McCain-Palin ticket. In fact, this is the most enthusiastic conservatives have been since the era for Ronald Reagan.”
He added: “This is a grand-slam home run. Conservatives’ feet haven’t touched the ground since this announcement.”
The hugely influential Conservative grassroots leader, said, "Governor Palin’s life story is one of sticking to principle. She is living proof that a person can take on the corrupt political establishment--including corrupt leaders in her own party--and achieve great things.”
Viguerie added, “There’s an old expression in politics: Go along to get along. Not this time. The selection of Sarah Palin is one big kick-in-the-pants to the corrupt establishment in both parties.
“Congratulations to John McCain for hearing and responding to conservatives. Conservatives, the base of the party, have been listless. But, now, nearly all will work enthusiastically for the McCain-Palin ticket. In fact, this is the most enthusiastic conservatives have been since the era for Ronald Reagan.”
He added: “This is a grand-slam home run. Conservatives’ feet haven’t touched the ground since this announcement.”
Sarah Palin's Pro-Life Courage
When columnist Nat Hentoff recommended the little known governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, as perhaps the best choice John McCain could make for his running mate, Hentoff did so on the basis of Palin's remarkable story as the mother of a Down Syndrome child. Contrary to the common practice these days, she chose to have her child, keep her child, and love her child. As a result, Hentoff argued that Palin would be "a decided asset: an independent Republican governor, a woman, a defender of life against the creeping culture of death and a fresh face in national politics."
But, more importantly, he argued, because of her own personal courage, family, and story, "Her presence could highlight Obama's extremist abortion views on whether certain lives are worth living--even a child born after a botched abortion."
Almost no one paid attention to Hentoff's Washington Times op-ed piece last spring--or to his seemingly out-of-right-field recommendation. But the pro-life movement will certainly be grateful that John McCain did pay attention and took the recommendation to heart.
But, more importantly, he argued, because of her own personal courage, family, and story, "Her presence could highlight Obama's extremist abortion views on whether certain lives are worth living--even a child born after a botched abortion."
Almost no one paid attention to Hentoff's Washington Times op-ed piece last spring--or to his seemingly out-of-right-field recommendation. But the pro-life movement will certainly be grateful that John McCain did pay attention and took the recommendation to heart.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Martin Niemöller's Lament (Remembered on the Occasion of the Democratic National Convention)
In the 30’s, in Germany,
when they came for the Communists,
I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade-unionists,
and I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a trade-unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn’t speak up
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
but by that time
there was no one left
to speak up.
when they came for the Communists,
I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade-unionists,
and I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a trade-unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn’t speak up
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
but by that time
there was no one left
to speak up.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Joe Biden: Pro-Abortion Catholic
“Barack Obama has re-opened a wound among American Catholics by picking a pro-abortion Catholic politician,” according to, Brian Burch president of the Catholic pro-life organization Fidelis.
American Catholic bishops have made clear that Catholic political leaders must defend the dignity of every human person, including the unborn. Sadly, Joe Biden's tenure in the United States Senate has been marked by steadfast support for pro-abortion policies, programs, and organizations. Indeed, during the most recent Democratic primary campaign Biden affirmed again, “I am a long-standing supporter of Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.”
In 2004, John Kerry's support for abortion sparked a nationwide controversy over whether Catholics who support legal abortion can receive Communion. The debate was re-activated in 2007 when several bishops criticized Rudy Guiliani, also a pro-abortion Catholic.
“Now everywhere Biden campaigns, we'll have this question of whether a pro-abortion Catholic can receive Communion. Senator Biden is an unrepentant supporter of abortion in direct opposition to the Church he claims as his own. Selecting a pro-abortion Catholic is a slap in the face to Catholic voters,” said Burch.
Biden's own bishop, Bishop Michael Saltarelli of Wilmington, Del., has said that the issues pertaining to the sanctity of human life are the “great civil rights issues of this generation.” He has denounced the notion that politicians can “personally oppose” abortion, but refuse to pass laws protecting the unborn.
“No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’ Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena,’” said Bishop Saltarelli. In fact, he has made it clear that pro-abortion Catholic politicians should refrain from full sacramental communion in the church for however long they remain apostate. “The promotion of abortion by any Catholic is a grave and serious matter. Objectively, according to the constant teaching of the Scriptures and the Church, it would be more spiritually beneficial for such a person to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. I ask Catholics in this position to have the integrity to respect the Eucharist, Catholic teaching and the Catholic faithful.”
Thus, Burch concluded, “The American bishops have instructed Catholic voters to consider many issues, but have characterized the defense of human life as 'foundational' and have explained that the issue has a special claim on the conscience of the Catholic voter. This means that a political candidate like Biden, because of his strong support for abortion rights, forfeits any claim for support despite his views on other issues like health care and the economy.”
American Catholic bishops have made clear that Catholic political leaders must defend the dignity of every human person, including the unborn. Sadly, Joe Biden's tenure in the United States Senate has been marked by steadfast support for pro-abortion policies, programs, and organizations. Indeed, during the most recent Democratic primary campaign Biden affirmed again, “I am a long-standing supporter of Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.”
In 2004, John Kerry's support for abortion sparked a nationwide controversy over whether Catholics who support legal abortion can receive Communion. The debate was re-activated in 2007 when several bishops criticized Rudy Guiliani, also a pro-abortion Catholic.
“Now everywhere Biden campaigns, we'll have this question of whether a pro-abortion Catholic can receive Communion. Senator Biden is an unrepentant supporter of abortion in direct opposition to the Church he claims as his own. Selecting a pro-abortion Catholic is a slap in the face to Catholic voters,” said Burch.
Biden's own bishop, Bishop Michael Saltarelli of Wilmington, Del., has said that the issues pertaining to the sanctity of human life are the “great civil rights issues of this generation.” He has denounced the notion that politicians can “personally oppose” abortion, but refuse to pass laws protecting the unborn.
“No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’ Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena,’” said Bishop Saltarelli. In fact, he has made it clear that pro-abortion Catholic politicians should refrain from full sacramental communion in the church for however long they remain apostate. “The promotion of abortion by any Catholic is a grave and serious matter. Objectively, according to the constant teaching of the Scriptures and the Church, it would be more spiritually beneficial for such a person to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. I ask Catholics in this position to have the integrity to respect the Eucharist, Catholic teaching and the Catholic faithful.”
Thus, Burch concluded, “The American bishops have instructed Catholic voters to consider many issues, but have characterized the defense of human life as 'foundational' and have explained that the issue has a special claim on the conscience of the Catholic voter. This means that a political candidate like Biden, because of his strong support for abortion rights, forfeits any claim for support despite his views on other issues like health care and the economy.”
Friday, August 22, 2008
Pro-Life Tenacity
The moral endurance necessary to stand on principle, regardless of the cost, is not a natural inclination for most of us. Our protective instincts incline us to compromise, to hedge, or to fudge. When push comes to shove most of us would rather waffle, wiggle, and waver than risk the wrath and ire of uncompromising conviction. Steadfastness in the face of adversity, opposition, or persecution must be nurtured, developed, and encouraged every step along the way:
1. Establish your convictions on the foundation of clear-eyed vision. Vision is the ability to beyond the constraints of present circumstances to the possibilities of the future. It is the hunger to see was is in terms of what ought to be. It is the passion to live life beyond the limits imposed by the tyranny of the urgent. We live in a pragmatic time of expediency, practicality, and sensibility—as a result, the cause of the visionary is all too often seen as little more than a lost cause. Throughout the ages however, wise men and women have seen vision for what it is: the hope of the future, the mainspring of progress, and the provocation for success. It has always been the basis for genuine persistence and passion. It is not possible to be indifferent and to remain steadfast. As Samuel Johnson said, “Indifference in questions of importance is no amiable quality.” It is also no enduring quality. In order to take a stand, we have to stand for something. In order to hold on, we have to hold on to something tangible, substantive, and palpable.
2. Differentiate true principle from mere preference. A principle upon which we stake everything we are and everything we do cannot simply be a matter of penchant, prejudice, or preference. It can’t simply be a matter of taste or style. It must be rooted in unchanging ideas and unchangeable ideals. It must take the form of an absolute. It must be part and parcel with our sense of calling, of duty, or responsibility, and of destiny. According to Samuel Johnson, “The future is purchased at the price of vision in the present.” Thus, we need to make certain that the things we stand for are really worth standing for—much is at stake.
3. Pick your battles. Not everything is worth fighting for. Not every hill is worth dying on. Not every cause is equally worthy of our involvement. We should not feel compelled to stake our lives, honors, and fortunes on every struggle that comes along. According to the great Civil War strategist, Stonewall Jackson, “Picking where and when to fight is almost more important than picking who to fight.” We need to know that a particular battle is worth waging in the first place—but also, what the most appropriate time and place might be in order to engage in it. We must be wise as serpents as well as innocent as doves. We must be good strategists. Sometimes, of course, our battles pick us. We don’t always have the luxury of scheduling sickness or adversity. But even when the battles come unbidden, we have a whole host of choices. And our ability to persevere in the midst of the raging storm is often dependent on our discernment about what matters most—and when it matters most.
4. Know that you may lose a battle. To lose a battle is not to say that you were necessarily wrong to undertake it in the first place. Sometimes lost causes are precisely the right causes. If we measure principle by pragmatism, then our principles are more than a little hollow. “Any coward can fight a battle when he’s sure of winning,” George Eliot once said, “but give me the man who has the pluck to fight when he’s sure of losing. That’s my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.” Standing by your principles is actually reward enough in and of itself. If turns of events justify your confidence and confirm your conviction with success, then all the better. But it is far more preferable to take a stand for that which is right even in defeat, than to compromise the things that matter most even if in triumph.
Tenacity is an essential pro-life virtue. Indeed, it is an essential Biblical virtue in the midst of this poor fallen world.
1. Establish your convictions on the foundation of clear-eyed vision. Vision is the ability to beyond the constraints of present circumstances to the possibilities of the future. It is the hunger to see was is in terms of what ought to be. It is the passion to live life beyond the limits imposed by the tyranny of the urgent. We live in a pragmatic time of expediency, practicality, and sensibility—as a result, the cause of the visionary is all too often seen as little more than a lost cause. Throughout the ages however, wise men and women have seen vision for what it is: the hope of the future, the mainspring of progress, and the provocation for success. It has always been the basis for genuine persistence and passion. It is not possible to be indifferent and to remain steadfast. As Samuel Johnson said, “Indifference in questions of importance is no amiable quality.” It is also no enduring quality. In order to take a stand, we have to stand for something. In order to hold on, we have to hold on to something tangible, substantive, and palpable.
2. Differentiate true principle from mere preference. A principle upon which we stake everything we are and everything we do cannot simply be a matter of penchant, prejudice, or preference. It can’t simply be a matter of taste or style. It must be rooted in unchanging ideas and unchangeable ideals. It must take the form of an absolute. It must be part and parcel with our sense of calling, of duty, or responsibility, and of destiny. According to Samuel Johnson, “The future is purchased at the price of vision in the present.” Thus, we need to make certain that the things we stand for are really worth standing for—much is at stake.
3. Pick your battles. Not everything is worth fighting for. Not every hill is worth dying on. Not every cause is equally worthy of our involvement. We should not feel compelled to stake our lives, honors, and fortunes on every struggle that comes along. According to the great Civil War strategist, Stonewall Jackson, “Picking where and when to fight is almost more important than picking who to fight.” We need to know that a particular battle is worth waging in the first place—but also, what the most appropriate time and place might be in order to engage in it. We must be wise as serpents as well as innocent as doves. We must be good strategists. Sometimes, of course, our battles pick us. We don’t always have the luxury of scheduling sickness or adversity. But even when the battles come unbidden, we have a whole host of choices. And our ability to persevere in the midst of the raging storm is often dependent on our discernment about what matters most—and when it matters most.
4. Know that you may lose a battle. To lose a battle is not to say that you were necessarily wrong to undertake it in the first place. Sometimes lost causes are precisely the right causes. If we measure principle by pragmatism, then our principles are more than a little hollow. “Any coward can fight a battle when he’s sure of winning,” George Eliot once said, “but give me the man who has the pluck to fight when he’s sure of losing. That’s my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.” Standing by your principles is actually reward enough in and of itself. If turns of events justify your confidence and confirm your conviction with success, then all the better. But it is far more preferable to take a stand for that which is right even in defeat, than to compromise the things that matter most even if in triumph.
Tenacity is an essential pro-life virtue. Indeed, it is an essential Biblical virtue in the midst of this poor fallen world.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Disqualified
If determining just when and for whom basic civil rights belong really is above Senator Obama's pay grade, as he himself has now openly and brazenly confessed, then surely he is disqualified from any consideration as the next president of the United States.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
James Talmage Describes the Killer Angel
"Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light!"
2 Corinthians 11:14
Sin, crawling out of the ditch of poverty and shame, has but few temptations. Poets and painters have portrayed Satan as a hideous creature--with horns and hoofs. If I were a poet, I would describe him with . . .
Manners polished to the last perfection;
Hair flowing in graceful ringlets;
Eye glistening with splendor;
Hands soft and diamonded;
Step light and graceful;
Voice mellow as a flute;
Conversation articulate and eloquent;
Breath perfumed until it would seem that nothing had ever touched his lips, but balm and myrrh.
But I would simultaneously unmask his heart; I would describe its encasement with the scales of a monster, filled with . . .
Pride;
Beastliness of lust;
Recklessness;
Hypocrisy;
Death;
Damnation!
But, until unmasked, I would describe him as nothing but myrrh, and balm, and ringlet, and diamond, and flute-like voice, with pleasant and mirthful conversation.
"So that Satan will not outsmart us. For we are very familiar with his evil schemes." 2 Corinthians 2:11
Sin, crawling out of the ditch of poverty and shame, has but few temptations. Poets and painters have portrayed Satan as a hideous creature--with horns and hoofs. If I were a poet, I would describe him with . . .
Manners polished to the last perfection;
Hair flowing in graceful ringlets;
Eye glistening with splendor;
Hands soft and diamonded;
Step light and graceful;
Voice mellow as a flute;
Conversation articulate and eloquent;
Breath perfumed until it would seem that nothing had ever touched his lips, but balm and myrrh.
But I would simultaneously unmask his heart; I would describe its encasement with the scales of a monster, filled with . . .
Pride;
Beastliness of lust;
Recklessness;
Hypocrisy;
Death;
Damnation!
But, until unmasked, I would describe him as nothing but myrrh, and balm, and ringlet, and diamond, and flute-like voice, with pleasant and mirthful conversation.
"So that Satan will not outsmart us. For we are very familiar with his evil schemes." 2 Corinthians 2:11
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Obama: Postmodernist
Asked to define "sin," Illinois Senator Barak Obama replied, "Sin is being out of alignment with my values."
Huh? Oh my! Is this hopeless ignorance or brazen arrogance or some malignant amalgamation of the two?
Jonah Goldberg answers brilliantly in his USA Today op-ed today. It is must reading for any Obama-leaning voter.
Huh? Oh my! Is this hopeless ignorance or brazen arrogance or some malignant amalgamation of the two?
Jonah Goldberg answers brilliantly in his USA Today op-ed today. It is must reading for any Obama-leaning voter.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Unscientific Science
"I never said a word against eminent men of science. What I complain of is a vague popular philosophy which supposes itself to be scientific when it is really nothing but a sort of new religion and an uncommonly nasty one. When people talked about the fall of man they knew they were talking about a mystery, a thing they didn't understand. Now that they talk about the survival of the fittest they think they do understand it, whereas they have not merely no notion, they have an elaborately false notion of what the words mean. The Darwinian movement has made no difference to mankind, except that, instead of talking unphilosophically about philosophy, they now talk unscientifically about science." G. K. Chesterton
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Relativity
“Only the sheerest relativism insists that passing time renders unattainable one ideal while forcing upon us another.” Richard Weaver
Friday, July 25, 2008
Black Genocide
In America today, nearly as many African-American children are aborted as are born.
A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby.
Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.
Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.
About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.
Tragically, what the Ku Klux Klan attempted but ultimately failed to do, Planned Parenthood is now accomplishing.
A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby.
Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.
Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.
About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.
Tragically, what the Ku Klux Klan attempted but ultimately failed to do, Planned Parenthood is now accomplishing.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Krauthammer on Obama
"Americans are beginning to notice Barak Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted 'present' nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself. It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history--'generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment'--when, among other wonders, 'the rise of the oceans began to slow.' As economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, 'Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.' Obama apparently works alone." Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Hall of Shame
Every year Planned Parenthood Federation of America thanks its most ardent advocates in the media, arts, and entertainment industries with its “Maggie Awards.” Named for the notorious founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, the awards recognize the ways TV, radio, film, journalism, and advertising can reinforce the organization’s deleterious sex education, teen pregnancy, abortion agenda. The “Maggie Award” recipients for 2008 include:
Kate Walsh, actor, for her extensive advocacy efforts on behalf of affordable family planning services and real sex education;
ABC-TV for Boston Legal, "The Chicken and the Leg" episode;
Cosmopolitan, “The Sneaky Threat to Your Fertility,” by Stacey Colino, and “I Have an STD. Now What?” by Gail O’Connor;
Redbook, “Your (very personal) Health at 20, 30, 40, 50,” by Andrea Cooper;
Marie Claire, “The Easiest Choice I've Ever Made Is Also the Hardest to Live With,” by Gretchen Voss;
John Young from the Waco Tribune-Herald for numerous editorials in support of reproductive health and sexuality education;
Judy Peres for her extensive body of work in support of reproductive rights and sexual health while at the Chicago Tribune.
Kate Walsh, actor, for her extensive advocacy efforts on behalf of affordable family planning services and real sex education;
ABC-TV for Boston Legal, "The Chicken and the Leg" episode;
Cosmopolitan, “The Sneaky Threat to Your Fertility,” by Stacey Colino, and “I Have an STD. Now What?” by Gail O’Connor;
Redbook, “Your (very personal) Health at 20, 30, 40, 50,” by Andrea Cooper;
Marie Claire, “The Easiest Choice I've Ever Made Is Also the Hardest to Live With,” by Gretchen Voss;
John Young from the Waco Tribune-Herald for numerous editorials in support of reproductive health and sexuality education;
Judy Peres for her extensive body of work in support of reproductive rights and sexual health while at the Chicago Tribune.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Planned Parenthood and Obama
Today Planned Parenthood formally announced its endorsement of Barak Obama for president. Of course, the announcement had been expected for some time. Last month, the board of the national Planned Parenthood Action Fund voted unanimously to recommend endorsing him. This decision was then ratified by Planned Parenthood’s local action organizations, which represent the interests of all 100 Planned Parenthood affiliates.
The organization's president, Cecile Richard, confirmed the fact that the junior senator from Illinois and presumptive Democratic nominee is perhaps the most extreme pro-abortion candidate for national elective office ever to step onto the national stage. Indeed, his appalling pro-abortion credentials were enumerated in the Planned Parenthood announcement:
Senator Obama received a 100 percent rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. This stands in stark contrast to Senator John McCain’s zero percent rating.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored a bevy of legislative measures favorable to Planned Parenthood's revolutionary agenda including: Prevention Through Affordable Access Act, Prevention First Act, Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act, Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act
Senator Obama supports Planned Parenthood-style comprehensive sex education and voted in favor of legislation to fund in-class indoctrination.
Senator Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which would prohibit any regulation of the multi-billion-dollar abortion trade.
Senator Obama voted to repeal federal standards barring taxpayer funded programs that perform or promote abortions.
The organization's president, Cecile Richard, confirmed the fact that the junior senator from Illinois and presumptive Democratic nominee is perhaps the most extreme pro-abortion candidate for national elective office ever to step onto the national stage. Indeed, his appalling pro-abortion credentials were enumerated in the Planned Parenthood announcement:
Senator Obama received a 100 percent rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. This stands in stark contrast to Senator John McCain’s zero percent rating.
Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored a bevy of legislative measures favorable to Planned Parenthood's revolutionary agenda including: Prevention Through Affordable Access Act, Prevention First Act, Communities of Color Teen Pregnancy Prevention Act, Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act
Senator Obama supports Planned Parenthood-style comprehensive sex education and voted in favor of legislation to fund in-class indoctrination.
Senator Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which would prohibit any regulation of the multi-billion-dollar abortion trade.
Senator Obama voted to repeal federal standards barring taxpayer funded programs that perform or promote abortions.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Eugenic Horror
In 1922 Margaret Sanger, the radical Eugenicist and Revolutionary who founded Planned Parenthood, chided social workers, philanthropists, and churchmen for perpetuating what she called "the cruelty of charity." She argued that organized attempts to help the poor were the "surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents." She went on to write that the most "insidiously injurious philanthropy" was the maternity care given to poor women. She concluded her diatribe by describing all those who refused to see the necessity of severely regulating the fertility of the working class as "benign imbeciles who encourage the defective and diseased elements of humanity in their reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning."
Her alternative to charity was "to eliminate the stocks" that she felt were most detrimental "to the future of the race and the world." To that end, Planned Parenthood has always targeted minorities, the unwanted, and the disadvantaged for family limitation, contraception, abortion, and sterilization. "More children from the fit, less from the unfit," Sanger opined, "that is the chief issue of birth control."
By 1922 her fame was secure. She had won several key legal battles, had coordinated an international conference on birth control, and had gone on a very successful round-the-world lecture tour. Her name had become a household word and one of her numerous books had become an instant bestseller in spite of--or perhaps because of--the tremendous controversy it had caused.
Entitled The Pivot of Civilization, it was one of the first popularly written books to openly expound and extol Eugenic aims. Throughout its 284 pages, Sanger unashamedly called for the elimination of "human weeds," for the "cessation of charity," for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and the maladjusted" and for the coercive sterilization of "genetically inferior races." Published today, such a book would be denigrated as the basest sort of intolerant racism. But writing when she did, Margaret only gained more acclaim.
Because of her Eugenic connections, she had become closely associated with the scientists and theorists who put together Nazi Germany's "race purification" program. She had openly endorsed the euthanasia, sterilization, abortion, and infanticide programs of the early Reich. She published a number of articles in The Birth Control Review that mirrored Hitler's White Supremacist rhetoric. She even commissioned Dr. Ernst Rudin, the director of the Nazi Medical Experimentation program, to write for The Review himself.
Naturally, as the end of the Second World War neared and the grisly details of the Nazi programs began to come to light, Sanger was forced to backpedal her position and cover up her complicity. Charges of anti-Semitism had been aimed at her since her trial in 1917, but now that Auschwitz and Dachau had become very much a part of the public conscience, she realized she would have to do something, and quickly.
Her first step toward redeeming her public image was to change the name of her organization. "Planned Parenthood" was a name that had been proposed from within the birth control movement since at least 1938. One of the arguments for the new name was that it connoted a positive program and conveyed a clean, wholesome, family-oriented image. It diverted attention from the international and revolutionary intentions of the movement, focusing instead on the personal and individual dimensions of birth control.
Next, she embarked on an aggressive affiliation program that brought hundreds of local and regional birth control leagues under the umbrella of her national organization, and then dozens of national organizations from around the globe were brought under the aegesis of her international federation. This enabled Sanger to draw on the integrity and respectability of grassroots organizations, solidifying and securing her place at the top.
Finally, she initiated a massive propaganda blitz aimed at the war-weary, ready-for-prosperity middle class. Always careful to hide her illicit affairs and her radical political leanings, her campaign emphasized "patriotism" and "family values."
But, the horrific Eugenic agenda remained despite the niceties of Sanger's PR campaign. To this day, the thrust of Planned Parenthood's literature focuses on the terrible "burden" that the poor place on the rest of us. It continually reminds us of the costs that welfare mothers incur for taxpayers. It constantly devises new plans to penetrate Black, Hispanic, and ethnic communities with its crippling message of Eugenic racism.
When, for instance, Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it reaffirmed Sanger's intentions: targeting inner-city minority neighborhoods. Of the more than 300 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade, none have been at substantially all-White schools. None have been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at Black, minority, or ethnic schools.
A racial analysis of abortion statistics is quite revealing in this regard. According to a Health and Human Services Administration report, as many as 43 percent of all abortions are performed on Blacks and another 10 percent on Hispanics. This, despite the fact that Blacks only make up eleven percent of the total U.S. population and Hispanics only about eight percent. A National Academy of Sciences investigation released more conservative--but no less telling--figures: thirty-two percent of all abortions are performed on minority mothers.
Planned Parenthood's crusade to eliminate all those "dysgenic stocks" that Margaret Sanger believed were a "dead weight of human waste" and a "menace to the race" has precipitated a wholesale slaughter. By 1975, a little more than one percent of the Black population had been aborted. By 1980 that figure had increased to nearly two and a half percent. By 1985, it had reached three percent. And by 1992 it had grown exponentially to a full four and a half percent. In most Black communities today abortions outstrip births by as much as three-to-one.
In order to realize Margaret Sanger's Eugenic ideal of eliminating the "masses of degenerate" and "good-for-nothing" races, Planned Parenthood has not only emphasized contraception and abortion, it has also carried the banner of sterilization. And, of course, that sterilization vendetta has been primarily leveled against minorities.
The sterilization rate among Blacks is forty-five percent higher than among whites. Among Hispanics the rate is thirty percent higher. As many as forty-two percent of all Amerind women and thirty-five percent of all Puerto Rican women have been sterilized.
Hardly a champion of choice, Sanger often sought mandatory population control measures--measures carefully designed to deny women the freedom to choose. In 1934, she recommended that the government launch a health care reform plan that would include "parenthood permits." The permits would only be issued to those couples "deemed Eugenically fit by public officials." According to her proposal "no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, no man shall have the right to become a father" without such a permit. And the permits were "not to be valid for more than one birth."
Following in her footsteps, Planned Parenthood has proposed that our government implement similar draconian measures. For instance, the organization has recommended "compulsory abortion for out-of-wedlock pregnancies," federal entitlement"payments to encourage abortion," "compulsory sterilization for those who have already had two children," and "tax penalties" for existing large families.
And in China, Planned Parenthood helped the government launch a brutal, no-holds-barred, one-child-per-couple policy. Nearly 100 million forced abortions, mandatory sterilizations, and coercive infanticides later, Planned Parenthood literature maintains that the genocidal approach to population control is a "model of efficiency." It has fought to maintain United States tax subsidies for the Chinese operation, and has continued to increase its own funding and program support involvement despite the widespread reports of human rights atrocities.
Her alternative to charity was "to eliminate the stocks" that she felt were most detrimental "to the future of the race and the world." To that end, Planned Parenthood has always targeted minorities, the unwanted, and the disadvantaged for family limitation, contraception, abortion, and sterilization. "More children from the fit, less from the unfit," Sanger opined, "that is the chief issue of birth control."
By 1922 her fame was secure. She had won several key legal battles, had coordinated an international conference on birth control, and had gone on a very successful round-the-world lecture tour. Her name had become a household word and one of her numerous books had become an instant bestseller in spite of--or perhaps because of--the tremendous controversy it had caused.
Entitled The Pivot of Civilization, it was one of the first popularly written books to openly expound and extol Eugenic aims. Throughout its 284 pages, Sanger unashamedly called for the elimination of "human weeds," for the "cessation of charity," for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and the maladjusted" and for the coercive sterilization of "genetically inferior races." Published today, such a book would be denigrated as the basest sort of intolerant racism. But writing when she did, Margaret only gained more acclaim.
Because of her Eugenic connections, she had become closely associated with the scientists and theorists who put together Nazi Germany's "race purification" program. She had openly endorsed the euthanasia, sterilization, abortion, and infanticide programs of the early Reich. She published a number of articles in The Birth Control Review that mirrored Hitler's White Supremacist rhetoric. She even commissioned Dr. Ernst Rudin, the director of the Nazi Medical Experimentation program, to write for The Review himself.
Naturally, as the end of the Second World War neared and the grisly details of the Nazi programs began to come to light, Sanger was forced to backpedal her position and cover up her complicity. Charges of anti-Semitism had been aimed at her since her trial in 1917, but now that Auschwitz and Dachau had become very much a part of the public conscience, she realized she would have to do something, and quickly.
Her first step toward redeeming her public image was to change the name of her organization. "Planned Parenthood" was a name that had been proposed from within the birth control movement since at least 1938. One of the arguments for the new name was that it connoted a positive program and conveyed a clean, wholesome, family-oriented image. It diverted attention from the international and revolutionary intentions of the movement, focusing instead on the personal and individual dimensions of birth control.
Next, she embarked on an aggressive affiliation program that brought hundreds of local and regional birth control leagues under the umbrella of her national organization, and then dozens of national organizations from around the globe were brought under the aegesis of her international federation. This enabled Sanger to draw on the integrity and respectability of grassroots organizations, solidifying and securing her place at the top.
Finally, she initiated a massive propaganda blitz aimed at the war-weary, ready-for-prosperity middle class. Always careful to hide her illicit affairs and her radical political leanings, her campaign emphasized "patriotism" and "family values."
But, the horrific Eugenic agenda remained despite the niceties of Sanger's PR campaign. To this day, the thrust of Planned Parenthood's literature focuses on the terrible "burden" that the poor place on the rest of us. It continually reminds us of the costs that welfare mothers incur for taxpayers. It constantly devises new plans to penetrate Black, Hispanic, and ethnic communities with its crippling message of Eugenic racism.
When, for instance, Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it reaffirmed Sanger's intentions: targeting inner-city minority neighborhoods. Of the more than 300 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade, none have been at substantially all-White schools. None have been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at Black, minority, or ethnic schools.
A racial analysis of abortion statistics is quite revealing in this regard. According to a Health and Human Services Administration report, as many as 43 percent of all abortions are performed on Blacks and another 10 percent on Hispanics. This, despite the fact that Blacks only make up eleven percent of the total U.S. population and Hispanics only about eight percent. A National Academy of Sciences investigation released more conservative--but no less telling--figures: thirty-two percent of all abortions are performed on minority mothers.
Planned Parenthood's crusade to eliminate all those "dysgenic stocks" that Margaret Sanger believed were a "dead weight of human waste" and a "menace to the race" has precipitated a wholesale slaughter. By 1975, a little more than one percent of the Black population had been aborted. By 1980 that figure had increased to nearly two and a half percent. By 1985, it had reached three percent. And by 1992 it had grown exponentially to a full four and a half percent. In most Black communities today abortions outstrip births by as much as three-to-one.
In order to realize Margaret Sanger's Eugenic ideal of eliminating the "masses of degenerate" and "good-for-nothing" races, Planned Parenthood has not only emphasized contraception and abortion, it has also carried the banner of sterilization. And, of course, that sterilization vendetta has been primarily leveled against minorities.
The sterilization rate among Blacks is forty-five percent higher than among whites. Among Hispanics the rate is thirty percent higher. As many as forty-two percent of all Amerind women and thirty-five percent of all Puerto Rican women have been sterilized.
Hardly a champion of choice, Sanger often sought mandatory population control measures--measures carefully designed to deny women the freedom to choose. In 1934, she recommended that the government launch a health care reform plan that would include "parenthood permits." The permits would only be issued to those couples "deemed Eugenically fit by public officials." According to her proposal "no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, no man shall have the right to become a father" without such a permit. And the permits were "not to be valid for more than one birth."
Following in her footsteps, Planned Parenthood has proposed that our government implement similar draconian measures. For instance, the organization has recommended "compulsory abortion for out-of-wedlock pregnancies," federal entitlement"payments to encourage abortion," "compulsory sterilization for those who have already had two children," and "tax penalties" for existing large families.
And in China, Planned Parenthood helped the government launch a brutal, no-holds-barred, one-child-per-couple policy. Nearly 100 million forced abortions, mandatory sterilizations, and coercive infanticides later, Planned Parenthood literature maintains that the genocidal approach to population control is a "model of efficiency." It has fought to maintain United States tax subsidies for the Chinese operation, and has continued to increase its own funding and program support involvement despite the widespread reports of human rights atrocities.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Liberalism's Paradox
“The whole point of the Liberal Eugenic pseudo-scientific theories is that they are to be applied wholesale, by some more sweeping and generalizing money power than the individual husband or wife or household. Eugenics asserts that all men must be so stupid that they cannot manage their own affairs; and also so clever that they can manage each other’s. G.K. Chesterton
Friday, July 11, 2008
Mike Wallace and Margaret Sanger
Long before CBS launched its signature 60 Minutes news magazine, Mike Wallace had his own interview program sponsored by tobacco giant, Philip Morris. Every program began with a soliloquy of praise for smoking. In fact, Wallace's signature sign-on was "My name is Mike Wallace; the cigarette is Philip Morris." Then, he would proceed to one of his hard-hitting interviews.
On September 21, 1957, he interviewed the aged but still controversial Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger. Having uncovered the archive of that half century-old film clip David and Tim Bayly provide an excellent summary of Sanger's moral obfuscation in a recent entry on their Bayly Blog. Or, for the video and complete transcript her shockingly muddled depravity, you can visit the Ransom Center Collection at the University of Texas.
It is fascinating to consider, as the Bayly Blog does, that smoking is now virtually banned but abortion is legal; the former is universally derided as an obvious vice while the latter is heralded as an obvious virtue. How much more latitudinarian could our sensate culture possibly be? Thanks, Mrs. Sanger.
On September 21, 1957, he interviewed the aged but still controversial Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger. Having uncovered the archive of that half century-old film clip David and Tim Bayly provide an excellent summary of Sanger's moral obfuscation in a recent entry on their Bayly Blog. Or, for the video and complete transcript her shockingly muddled depravity, you can visit the Ransom Center Collection at the University of Texas.
It is fascinating to consider, as the Bayly Blog does, that smoking is now virtually banned but abortion is legal; the former is universally derided as an obvious vice while the latter is heralded as an obvious virtue. How much more latitudinarian could our sensate culture possibly be? Thanks, Mrs. Sanger.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Blood Money
With no little unintended irony, Planned Parenthood's president, Cecile Richards, sent a solicitation e-mail this past week to donors asserting, "Your support is the lifeblood of this organization--quite literally, you keep us going." She continued, "Your dollars, of course, are critical to our work."
Ummm--well, duh! Every week donations to Planned Parenthood enable the organization to slaughter another 5,572 children. Indeed, that blood money has cost 4,358,499 lives since Roe v. Wade made abortion and infanticide procedures legal through all nine months of pregnancy in the US.
Ummm--well, duh! Every week donations to Planned Parenthood enable the organization to slaughter another 5,572 children. Indeed, that blood money has cost 4,358,499 lives since Roe v. Wade made abortion and infanticide procedures legal through all nine months of pregnancy in the US.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Abortion Palaces
According to the Houston Chronicle Planned Parenthood will soon open a palatial 78,000-square-foot, six-story abortion center adjacent to the University of Houston on the busy Gulf Freeway. In Denver, the organization just opened a grand new 50,000 square-foot abortuary that the local TV 9 News report compared to "Fort Knox" because of its $300,000 security system.
Planned Parenthood's $1 billion in annual revenue from both its booming abortion business and vast taxpayer largess has made it possible for the organization to undertake a dramatic upgrade of its killing facilities all around the country. Peter Durkin, chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas said, "It is our responsibility to appeal to everyone, from those who hold Medicaid cards to those with American Express cards."
Monday, July 7, 2008
Obama's Pro-Abort Fanaticism
It's little wonder that Planned Parenthood invited its legion of pro-abortion supporters to send the junior Illinois Senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee "valentines" and "love letters." In her most recent WorldNetDaily column, Jill Stanek reveals why many political observers are now calling Barak Obama the most radical and deeply committed advocate of "medical" infanticide and child-killing procedures ever to run for federal office in the United States.Last July in Washington, DC, Obama made a brazen pledge at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser. "The first thing I'd do as president," he said, "is sign the Freedom of Choice Act."
The purpose of that insidious pro-abortion legislation is to "prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, any interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or to terminate a pregnancy." Thankfully, the bill has never passed muster with Congress, but its intention is obviously radical and sweeping--it is to nullify every health and safety regulation or restriction currently in place in all 50 states on the sprawling and lucrative abortion industry and on behemoth special interest groups like Planned Parenthood.
Although Obama has toned down some of the forthrightness of his pro-abortion rhetoric of late--apparently in an attempt to woo disaffected Evangelicals on the campaign trail--he has not altered or diminished his promise to Planned Parenthood in any way whatsoever.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Sanger's Sordid Legacy
On January 1, 1900, most Americans greeted the twentieth century with the proud and certain belief that the next hundred years would be the greatest, the most glorious, and the most glamorous in human history. They were infected with a sanguine spirit. Optimism was rampant. A brazen confidence colored their every activity.
Certainly there was nothing in their experience to make them think otherwise. Never had a century changed the lives of men and women more dramatically than the one just past. The twentieth century has moved fast and furiously, so that those of us who have lived in it feel sometimes giddy, watching it spin; but the nineteenth moved faster and more furiously still. Railroads, telephones, the telegraph, electricity, mass production, forged steel, automobiles, and countless other modern discoveries had all come upon them at a dizzying pace, expanding their visions and expectations far beyond their grandfathers' wildest dreams.
It was more than unfounded imagination, then, that lay behind the New York World's New Year's prediction that the twentieth century would “meet and overcome all perils and prove to be the best that this steadily improving planet has ever seen.”
Most Americans were cheerfully assured that control of man and nature would soon lie entirely within their grasp and would bestow upon them the unfathomable millennial power to alter the destinies of societies, nations, and epochs. They were a people of manifold purpose. They were a people of manifest destiny.
What they did not know was that dark and malignant seeds were already germinating just beneath the surface of the new century's soil. Josef Stalin was a twenty-one-year-old seminary student in Tiflis, a pious and serene community at the crossroads of Georgia and Ukraine. Benito Mussolini was a seventeen-year-old student teacher in the quiet suburbs of Milan. Adolf Hitler was an eleven-year-old aspiring art student in the quaint upper Austrian village of Brannan. And Margaret Sanger was a twenty-year-old out-of-sorts nursing school dropout in White Plains, New York. Who could have ever guessed on that ebulliently auspicious New Year's Day that those four youngsters would, over the span of the next century, spill more innocent blood than all the murderers, warlords, and tyrants of past history combined? Who could have ever guessed that those four youngsters would together ensure that the hopes and dreams and aspirations of' the twentieth century would be smothered under the weight of holocaust, genocide, and triage?
As the champion of the proletariat, Stalin saw to the slaughter of at least fifteen million Russian and Ukrainian kulaks. As the popularly acclaimed Il Duce, Mussolini massacred as many as four million Ethiopians, two million Eritreans, and a million Serbs, Croats, and Albanians. As the wildly lionized Fuhrer, Hitler exterminated more than six million Jews, two million Slavs, and a million Poles. As the founder of Planned Parenthood and the impassioned heroine of various feminist causes celebres, Sanger was responsible for the brutal elimination of more than thirty million children in the United States and as many as two and a half billion worldwide.
No one in his right mind would want to rehabilitate the reputations of Stalin, Mussolini, or Hitler. Their barbarism, treachery, and debauchery will make their names live on in infamy forever. Amazingly though, Sanger has somehow escaped their wretched fate. In spite of the fact that her crimes against humanity were no less heinous than theirs, her place in history has effectively been sanitized and sanctified. In spite of the fact that she openly identified herself in one way or another with their aims, intentions, ideologies, and movements--with Stalin's Sobornostic Collectivism, with Hitler's Eugenic Racism, and with Mussolini's Agathistic Facism--her faithful minions have managed to manufacture an independent reputation for the perpetuation of her memory.
In life and death, the progenitor of the grisly abortion industry and the patron of the devastating sexual revolution has been lauded as a “radiant” and “courageous” reformer. She has been heralded by friend and foe alike as a "heroine,” a “champion,” a “saint,” and a “martyr.” Honored by men as different and divergent as H. G. Wells and Martin Luther King, George Bernard Shaw and Harry Truman, Bertrand Russell and John D. Rockefeller, Albert Einstein and Dwight Eisenhower, this remarkable “killer angel” was able to secret away her perverse atrocities, emerging in the annals of history practically vindicated and victorious.
That this could happen is a scandal of grotesque proportions.
And recently the proportions have only grown--like a deleterious Kudzu or a rogue Topsy. Sanger has been the subject of adoring television dramas, hagiographical biographies, patronizing theatrical productions, and saccharined musical tributes. Though the facts of her life and work are anything but inspiring, millions of unwary moderns have been urged to find in them inspiration and hope. Myth is rarely dependent upon truth, after all.
Sanger’s rehabilitation has depended on writers, journalists, historians, social scientists, and sundry other media celebrities steadfastly obscuring or blithely ignoring what she did, what she said, and what she believed. It has thus depended upon a don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts ideological tenacity unmatched by any but the most extreme of our modern secular cults.
This brief site is an attempt to set the record straight. It is an attempt to rectify that shameful distortion of the social, cultural, and historical record. It has no other agenda than to replace fiction with fact.
Nevertheless, that agenda necessarily involves stripping away all too many layers of dense palimpsests of politically correct revisionism. But that ought to be the honest historian’s central purpose anyway. Henry Cabot Lodge once asserted, “Nearly all the historical work worth doing at the present moment in the English language is the work of shoveling off heaps of rubbish inherited from the immediate past.”
That then is the task of this site.
Of course, many would question the relevance of any kind of biographical or historical work at all. I can’t even begin to recount how many times a Planned Parenthood staffer has tried to deflect the impact of Sanger’s heinous record by dismissing it as “old news” or “ancient history” and thus irrelevant to any current issue or discussion.
It is an argument that seems to sell well in the current marketplace of ideas. We have actually come to believe that matters and persons of present import are unaffected by matters and persons of past import.
We moderns hold to a strangely disjunctive view of the relationship between life and work--thus enabling us to nonchalantly separate a person's private character from their public accomplishments. But this novel divorce of root from fruit, however genteel, is a ribald denial of one of the most basic truths in life: what you are begets what you do; wrong-headed philosophies stem from wrong-headed philosophers; sin doesn't just happen--it is sinners that sin.
Thus, according to the English historian and journalist Hilaire Belloc, “Biography always affords the greatest insights into sociology. To comprehend the history of a thing is to unlock the mysteries of its present, and more, to discover the profundities of its future.” Similarly, the inimitable Samuel Johnson quipped, “Almost all the miseries of life, almost all the wickedness that infects society, and almost all the distresses that afflict mankind, are the consequences of some defect in private duties.”
Or, as E. Michael Jones has asserted, “Biography is destiny.”
This is particularly true in the case of Margaret Sanger. The organization she founded, Planned Parenthood, is the oldest, largest, and best-organized provider of abortion and birth control services in the world. From its ignoble beginnings around the turn of the century, when the entire shoestring operation consisted of an illegal back-alley clinic in a shabby Brooklyn neighborhood staffed by a shadowy clutch of firebrand activists and anarchists, it has expanded dramatically into a multi-billion-dollar international conglomerate with programs and activities in 134 nations on every continent. In the United States alone, it has mobilized more than 20,000 staff personnel and volunteers along the front lines of an increasingly confrontational and vitriolic culture war. Today they man the organization’s 167 affiliates and its 922 clinics in virtually every major metropolitan area, coast to coast. Boasting an opulent national headquarters in New York, a sedulous legislative center in Washington, opprobrious regional command posts in Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and San Francisco, and officious international centers in London, Nairobi, Bangkok, and New Dehli, the Federation showed $23.5 million in earnings during fiscal year 1992 with $192.9 million in cash reserves and another $108.2 million in capital assets. With an estimated combined annual budget--including all regional and international service affiliates--of more than a trillion dollars, Planned Parenthood may well be the largest and most profitable non-profit organization in history.
The organization has used its considerable political, institutional, and financial clout to mainstream old-school left-wing extremism. It has weighed in with sophistocated lobbying, advertising, and back-room strong-arming to virtually remove the milennium-long stigma against child-killing abortion proceedures and family-sundering socialization programs. Planned Parenthood thus looms like a Goliath over the increasingly tragic culture war.
Despite its leviathan proportions it is impossible to entirely understand Planned Parenthood’s policies, programs, and priorities apart from Margaret Sanger’s life and work. It was, after all, originally established to be little more than an extension of her life and worldview.
It is therefore long overdue that the truth be told. It is long overdue that the proper standing of Margaret Sanger in the sordid history of this bloody century be secured.
Certainly there was nothing in their experience to make them think otherwise. Never had a century changed the lives of men and women more dramatically than the one just past. The twentieth century has moved fast and furiously, so that those of us who have lived in it feel sometimes giddy, watching it spin; but the nineteenth moved faster and more furiously still. Railroads, telephones, the telegraph, electricity, mass production, forged steel, automobiles, and countless other modern discoveries had all come upon them at a dizzying pace, expanding their visions and expectations far beyond their grandfathers' wildest dreams.
It was more than unfounded imagination, then, that lay behind the New York World's New Year's prediction that the twentieth century would “meet and overcome all perils and prove to be the best that this steadily improving planet has ever seen.”
Most Americans were cheerfully assured that control of man and nature would soon lie entirely within their grasp and would bestow upon them the unfathomable millennial power to alter the destinies of societies, nations, and epochs. They were a people of manifold purpose. They were a people of manifest destiny.
What they did not know was that dark and malignant seeds were already germinating just beneath the surface of the new century's soil. Josef Stalin was a twenty-one-year-old seminary student in Tiflis, a pious and serene community at the crossroads of Georgia and Ukraine. Benito Mussolini was a seventeen-year-old student teacher in the quiet suburbs of Milan. Adolf Hitler was an eleven-year-old aspiring art student in the quaint upper Austrian village of Brannan. And Margaret Sanger was a twenty-year-old out-of-sorts nursing school dropout in White Plains, New York. Who could have ever guessed on that ebulliently auspicious New Year's Day that those four youngsters would, over the span of the next century, spill more innocent blood than all the murderers, warlords, and tyrants of past history combined? Who could have ever guessed that those four youngsters would together ensure that the hopes and dreams and aspirations of' the twentieth century would be smothered under the weight of holocaust, genocide, and triage?
As the champion of the proletariat, Stalin saw to the slaughter of at least fifteen million Russian and Ukrainian kulaks. As the popularly acclaimed Il Duce, Mussolini massacred as many as four million Ethiopians, two million Eritreans, and a million Serbs, Croats, and Albanians. As the wildly lionized Fuhrer, Hitler exterminated more than six million Jews, two million Slavs, and a million Poles. As the founder of Planned Parenthood and the impassioned heroine of various feminist causes celebres, Sanger was responsible for the brutal elimination of more than thirty million children in the United States and as many as two and a half billion worldwide.
No one in his right mind would want to rehabilitate the reputations of Stalin, Mussolini, or Hitler. Their barbarism, treachery, and debauchery will make their names live on in infamy forever. Amazingly though, Sanger has somehow escaped their wretched fate. In spite of the fact that her crimes against humanity were no less heinous than theirs, her place in history has effectively been sanitized and sanctified. In spite of the fact that she openly identified herself in one way or another with their aims, intentions, ideologies, and movements--with Stalin's Sobornostic Collectivism, with Hitler's Eugenic Racism, and with Mussolini's Agathistic Facism--her faithful minions have managed to manufacture an independent reputation for the perpetuation of her memory.
In life and death, the progenitor of the grisly abortion industry and the patron of the devastating sexual revolution has been lauded as a “radiant” and “courageous” reformer. She has been heralded by friend and foe alike as a "heroine,” a “champion,” a “saint,” and a “martyr.” Honored by men as different and divergent as H. G. Wells and Martin Luther King, George Bernard Shaw and Harry Truman, Bertrand Russell and John D. Rockefeller, Albert Einstein and Dwight Eisenhower, this remarkable “killer angel” was able to secret away her perverse atrocities, emerging in the annals of history practically vindicated and victorious.
That this could happen is a scandal of grotesque proportions.
And recently the proportions have only grown--like a deleterious Kudzu or a rogue Topsy. Sanger has been the subject of adoring television dramas, hagiographical biographies, patronizing theatrical productions, and saccharined musical tributes. Though the facts of her life and work are anything but inspiring, millions of unwary moderns have been urged to find in them inspiration and hope. Myth is rarely dependent upon truth, after all.
Sanger’s rehabilitation has depended on writers, journalists, historians, social scientists, and sundry other media celebrities steadfastly obscuring or blithely ignoring what she did, what she said, and what she believed. It has thus depended upon a don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts ideological tenacity unmatched by any but the most extreme of our modern secular cults.
This brief site is an attempt to set the record straight. It is an attempt to rectify that shameful distortion of the social, cultural, and historical record. It has no other agenda than to replace fiction with fact.
Nevertheless, that agenda necessarily involves stripping away all too many layers of dense palimpsests of politically correct revisionism. But that ought to be the honest historian’s central purpose anyway. Henry Cabot Lodge once asserted, “Nearly all the historical work worth doing at the present moment in the English language is the work of shoveling off heaps of rubbish inherited from the immediate past.”
That then is the task of this site.
Of course, many would question the relevance of any kind of biographical or historical work at all. I can’t even begin to recount how many times a Planned Parenthood staffer has tried to deflect the impact of Sanger’s heinous record by dismissing it as “old news” or “ancient history” and thus irrelevant to any current issue or discussion.
It is an argument that seems to sell well in the current marketplace of ideas. We have actually come to believe that matters and persons of present import are unaffected by matters and persons of past import.
We moderns hold to a strangely disjunctive view of the relationship between life and work--thus enabling us to nonchalantly separate a person's private character from their public accomplishments. But this novel divorce of root from fruit, however genteel, is a ribald denial of one of the most basic truths in life: what you are begets what you do; wrong-headed philosophies stem from wrong-headed philosophers; sin doesn't just happen--it is sinners that sin.
Thus, according to the English historian and journalist Hilaire Belloc, “Biography always affords the greatest insights into sociology. To comprehend the history of a thing is to unlock the mysteries of its present, and more, to discover the profundities of its future.” Similarly, the inimitable Samuel Johnson quipped, “Almost all the miseries of life, almost all the wickedness that infects society, and almost all the distresses that afflict mankind, are the consequences of some defect in private duties.”
Or, as E. Michael Jones has asserted, “Biography is destiny.”
This is particularly true in the case of Margaret Sanger. The organization she founded, Planned Parenthood, is the oldest, largest, and best-organized provider of abortion and birth control services in the world. From its ignoble beginnings around the turn of the century, when the entire shoestring operation consisted of an illegal back-alley clinic in a shabby Brooklyn neighborhood staffed by a shadowy clutch of firebrand activists and anarchists, it has expanded dramatically into a multi-billion-dollar international conglomerate with programs and activities in 134 nations on every continent. In the United States alone, it has mobilized more than 20,000 staff personnel and volunteers along the front lines of an increasingly confrontational and vitriolic culture war. Today they man the organization’s 167 affiliates and its 922 clinics in virtually every major metropolitan area, coast to coast. Boasting an opulent national headquarters in New York, a sedulous legislative center in Washington, opprobrious regional command posts in Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and San Francisco, and officious international centers in London, Nairobi, Bangkok, and New Dehli, the Federation showed $23.5 million in earnings during fiscal year 1992 with $192.9 million in cash reserves and another $108.2 million in capital assets. With an estimated combined annual budget--including all regional and international service affiliates--of more than a trillion dollars, Planned Parenthood may well be the largest and most profitable non-profit organization in history.
The organization has used its considerable political, institutional, and financial clout to mainstream old-school left-wing extremism. It has weighed in with sophistocated lobbying, advertising, and back-room strong-arming to virtually remove the milennium-long stigma against child-killing abortion proceedures and family-sundering socialization programs. Planned Parenthood thus looms like a Goliath over the increasingly tragic culture war.
Despite its leviathan proportions it is impossible to entirely understand Planned Parenthood’s policies, programs, and priorities apart from Margaret Sanger’s life and work. It was, after all, originally established to be little more than an extension of her life and worldview.
It is therefore long overdue that the truth be told. It is long overdue that the proper standing of Margaret Sanger in the sordid history of this bloody century be secured.
Sanger's Root of Bitterness
Margaret Sanger was born on September 14, 1879, in the small industrial community of Corning in upstate New York, the sixth of eleven children. The circumstances of her home life were never happy--a fact to which she later attributed much of her agitated activism and bitter bombast. If it is true that “The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world,” it is equally true that “The hand that wrecks the cradle ruins the world.”
Her father, Michael Higgins, was an Irish Catholic immigrant who fancied himself a radical freethinker and a free-wheeling skeptic. As a youngster he had enlisted in General William Sherman’s notorious Twelfth New York Cavalry, and proudly participated in the nefarious campaign that ravaged and ravished the South, across Tennessee, through Atlanta, and to the sea. He achieved notable infamy among his peers when he was honored by his commander for special treachery in fiercely subduing the recalcitrant captive population. Not surprisingly that cruel and inhuman experience apparently hardened and embittered him. Triage and genocide are not easily forgotten by either victims or perpetrators. His criminal inhumanity constituted a kind of spiritual calamity from which he, like so many others of his region, never fully recovered. Forever afterward he was patheticly stunted, unable to maintain even a modicum of normalcy in his life or relations.
He worked sporadically as a stone mason and a tombstone carver but was either unwilling or unable to provide adequately for his large family. Margaret's mother, Anne Purcell, was a second generation American from a strict Irish Catholic family. She was frail and tuberculous but utterly devoted to her unstable and unpredictable husband--as well as their ever-growing brood of children.
The family suffered bitterly from cold, privation, and hunger. That was the common lot of thousands of other families in nineteenth century America. But the Higginses also suffered grievously from scorn, shame, and isolation--because of Michael's sullen improvidence. And like many a man who is proudly progressive in public, he was repressively remonstrant at home. He regularly thrashed his sons “to make men of them.” And he treated his wife and daughters as “virtual slaves.” And when he drank--which was whenever he could afford it--his volatile presence was even more oppressive than it normally was.
That is the paradox of dogmatic liberalism: though it loudly declares itself a champion of the weak, it is actually an unrelenting truncheon of the strong. Ideology inevitably resolves itself in some form of tyranny.
Sanger later described her family's existence under the unenlightened and inhuman hand of Michael’s enlightened humanism as "joyless and filled with drudgery and fear.” Even as an adult, whenever she was on a train that merely rode through Corning, she got a sharp pain in the pit of her stomach. She suffered, she said, from “Corningitis.”
Clearly, the Higginses had an impoverished and isolated life. But, not only did they have to endure grave social and material lack, they were spiritually deprived as well. As a confirmed skeptic, Michael mocked the sincere religious devotion of most of his neighbors. He openly embraced radicalism, socialism, and atheism. And he had little toleration for the modicum of morality that his poor wife tried to instill in the lives of their hapless children.
One day for example, when Margaret was on her knees saying the Lord's Prayer, she came to the phrase “Give us this day our daily bread,” and her father snidely cut her off.
“Who were you talking to?” he demanded.
“To God,” she replied innocently.
“Well, tell me, is God a baker?”
With no little consternation, she said, “No, of course not. But He makes the rain, the sunshine, and all the things that make the wheat, which makes the bread.”
After a thoughtful pause her father rejoined, “Well, well, so that's the idea. Then why didn't you just say so? Always say what you mean, my daughter, it is much better.”
In spite of Michael's concerted efforts to undermine Margaret's young and fragile faith, her mother had her baptized in St. Mary's Catholic Church on March 23, 1893. A year later, on July 8, 1894, she was confirmed. Both ceremonies were held in secret--her father would have been furious had he known. For some time afterward she displayed a zealous devotion to spiritual things. She regularly attended services and observed the disciplines of the liturgical year. She demonstrated a budding and apparently authentic hunger for truth.
But gradually the smothering effects of Michael's cynicism took their toll. When her mother died under the strain of her unhappy privation, Margaret was more vulnerable than ever before to his fierce undermining. Bitter, lonely, and grief-stricken, by the time she was seventeen her passion for Christ had collapsed into a bitter hatred of the church. It was a malignant malevolence that would forever after be her spiritual hallmark.
Anxious to move away from her malignant home life as soon as she could, Margaret was practically willing to go anywhere and try anything--as long as it was far from Corning. After a quick, almost frantic search, she settled on Claverack College. A small and inexpensive co-educational a boarding school attached to the famed Hudson River Institute, Claverack was a Methodist high school housed in an imposing wooden building on twenty picturesque acres overlooking the Hudson Valley. Not known for its academic rigors, the school was essentially a finishing school for protean youth.
It was there at Claverack that Margaret got her first taste of freedom. And what a wild and intoxicating freedom it was. She plunged into radical politics, suffragette feminism, and unfettered sex. Despite her relatively light academic load, she quickly fell behind in her work. She rarely attended her classes. And she almost never completed her assignments. Worse, she neglected her part-time job--necessary to pay for the nominal tuition.
It is said that we become most like those whom we are bitter against. Despite her now obvious animosity toward him, Margaret began to unconsciously emulate her father’s erratic personality. The stronger her resistance to his influence grew, the greater her immitation of his improvidence became.
But character has consequences. When she could no longer afford the tuition at Claverack, she was forced to return home--but only long enough to gather her belongings and set her affairs in order. She had drunk from the cup of concupiscence and would never again be satisfied with the quiet responsibilities and virtues of domesticity.
And so, as soon as she could, she moved in with her older sister in White Plains, taking a job as a kindergarten teacher. A youth corrupted became a youth corruptor.
Since she herself was now a high school drop out, she was assigned to a class made up primarily of the children of new immigrants. Much to her dismay, she found that her pupils couldn't understand a word that she said. She quickly grew tired of the laborious routine of teaching day in and day out. Gratefully, she quit after just two short terms.
Next, she applied for a job as a nurse-probationer at a small local hospital. Again though, Margaret’s careless and nomadic rootlessness was telling. Hospital work proved to be even more vexing and taxing than teaching. She never finished her training.
In later years she would claim to be a trained and practiced nurse. Nearly forty pages of her Autobiography were devoted to her varied, often heroic, experiences as a seasoned veteran in professional health care. But they were little more than Margaret’s well-realized fantasies.
In fact, her actual exposure to medicine was almost non-existent: she never got beyond running errands, changing sheets, and emptying bedpans. Like so much else in the mythic fable of her rise to prominence, her career as a nurse was little more than perpetrated fraud.
Determined to escape from the harsh bondage of labor and industry, she once again began to cast about for some viable alternative. She finally resorted to the only viable course open to a poor girl in those seemingly unenlightened days when the Puritan Work Ethic was still ethical: she married into money.
Her father, Michael Higgins, was an Irish Catholic immigrant who fancied himself a radical freethinker and a free-wheeling skeptic. As a youngster he had enlisted in General William Sherman’s notorious Twelfth New York Cavalry, and proudly participated in the nefarious campaign that ravaged and ravished the South, across Tennessee, through Atlanta, and to the sea. He achieved notable infamy among his peers when he was honored by his commander for special treachery in fiercely subduing the recalcitrant captive population. Not surprisingly that cruel and inhuman experience apparently hardened and embittered him. Triage and genocide are not easily forgotten by either victims or perpetrators. His criminal inhumanity constituted a kind of spiritual calamity from which he, like so many others of his region, never fully recovered. Forever afterward he was patheticly stunted, unable to maintain even a modicum of normalcy in his life or relations.
He worked sporadically as a stone mason and a tombstone carver but was either unwilling or unable to provide adequately for his large family. Margaret's mother, Anne Purcell, was a second generation American from a strict Irish Catholic family. She was frail and tuberculous but utterly devoted to her unstable and unpredictable husband--as well as their ever-growing brood of children.
The family suffered bitterly from cold, privation, and hunger. That was the common lot of thousands of other families in nineteenth century America. But the Higginses also suffered grievously from scorn, shame, and isolation--because of Michael's sullen improvidence. And like many a man who is proudly progressive in public, he was repressively remonstrant at home. He regularly thrashed his sons “to make men of them.” And he treated his wife and daughters as “virtual slaves.” And when he drank--which was whenever he could afford it--his volatile presence was even more oppressive than it normally was.
That is the paradox of dogmatic liberalism: though it loudly declares itself a champion of the weak, it is actually an unrelenting truncheon of the strong. Ideology inevitably resolves itself in some form of tyranny.
Sanger later described her family's existence under the unenlightened and inhuman hand of Michael’s enlightened humanism as "joyless and filled with drudgery and fear.” Even as an adult, whenever she was on a train that merely rode through Corning, she got a sharp pain in the pit of her stomach. She suffered, she said, from “Corningitis.”
Clearly, the Higginses had an impoverished and isolated life. But, not only did they have to endure grave social and material lack, they were spiritually deprived as well. As a confirmed skeptic, Michael mocked the sincere religious devotion of most of his neighbors. He openly embraced radicalism, socialism, and atheism. And he had little toleration for the modicum of morality that his poor wife tried to instill in the lives of their hapless children.
One day for example, when Margaret was on her knees saying the Lord's Prayer, she came to the phrase “Give us this day our daily bread,” and her father snidely cut her off.
“Who were you talking to?” he demanded.
“To God,” she replied innocently.
“Well, tell me, is God a baker?”
With no little consternation, she said, “No, of course not. But He makes the rain, the sunshine, and all the things that make the wheat, which makes the bread.”
After a thoughtful pause her father rejoined, “Well, well, so that's the idea. Then why didn't you just say so? Always say what you mean, my daughter, it is much better.”
In spite of Michael's concerted efforts to undermine Margaret's young and fragile faith, her mother had her baptized in St. Mary's Catholic Church on March 23, 1893. A year later, on July 8, 1894, she was confirmed. Both ceremonies were held in secret--her father would have been furious had he known. For some time afterward she displayed a zealous devotion to spiritual things. She regularly attended services and observed the disciplines of the liturgical year. She demonstrated a budding and apparently authentic hunger for truth.
But gradually the smothering effects of Michael's cynicism took their toll. When her mother died under the strain of her unhappy privation, Margaret was more vulnerable than ever before to his fierce undermining. Bitter, lonely, and grief-stricken, by the time she was seventeen her passion for Christ had collapsed into a bitter hatred of the church. It was a malignant malevolence that would forever after be her spiritual hallmark.
Anxious to move away from her malignant home life as soon as she could, Margaret was practically willing to go anywhere and try anything--as long as it was far from Corning. After a quick, almost frantic search, she settled on Claverack College. A small and inexpensive co-educational a boarding school attached to the famed Hudson River Institute, Claverack was a Methodist high school housed in an imposing wooden building on twenty picturesque acres overlooking the Hudson Valley. Not known for its academic rigors, the school was essentially a finishing school for protean youth.
It was there at Claverack that Margaret got her first taste of freedom. And what a wild and intoxicating freedom it was. She plunged into radical politics, suffragette feminism, and unfettered sex. Despite her relatively light academic load, she quickly fell behind in her work. She rarely attended her classes. And she almost never completed her assignments. Worse, she neglected her part-time job--necessary to pay for the nominal tuition.
It is said that we become most like those whom we are bitter against. Despite her now obvious animosity toward him, Margaret began to unconsciously emulate her father’s erratic personality. The stronger her resistance to his influence grew, the greater her immitation of his improvidence became.
But character has consequences. When she could no longer afford the tuition at Claverack, she was forced to return home--but only long enough to gather her belongings and set her affairs in order. She had drunk from the cup of concupiscence and would never again be satisfied with the quiet responsibilities and virtues of domesticity.
And so, as soon as she could, she moved in with her older sister in White Plains, taking a job as a kindergarten teacher. A youth corrupted became a youth corruptor.
Since she herself was now a high school drop out, she was assigned to a class made up primarily of the children of new immigrants. Much to her dismay, she found that her pupils couldn't understand a word that she said. She quickly grew tired of the laborious routine of teaching day in and day out. Gratefully, she quit after just two short terms.
Next, she applied for a job as a nurse-probationer at a small local hospital. Again though, Margaret’s careless and nomadic rootlessness was telling. Hospital work proved to be even more vexing and taxing than teaching. She never finished her training.
In later years she would claim to be a trained and practiced nurse. Nearly forty pages of her Autobiography were devoted to her varied, often heroic, experiences as a seasoned veteran in professional health care. But they were little more than Margaret’s well-realized fantasies.
In fact, her actual exposure to medicine was almost non-existent: she never got beyond running errands, changing sheets, and emptying bedpans. Like so much else in the mythic fable of her rise to prominence, her career as a nurse was little more than perpetrated fraud.
Determined to escape from the harsh bondage of labor and industry, she once again began to cast about for some viable alternative. She finally resorted to the only viable course open to a poor girl in those seemingly unenlightened days when the Puritan Work Ethic was still ethical: she married into money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)