The Moral Mandate To Defeat Hillary

This past week a talk radio colleague created a stir when she asserted that those who were refusing to vote for Donald Trump on moral grounds were both misguided but also hypocritical.

She went so far as to describe those that did not choose to support the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton as in essence supporting the expansion of abortion.

Laura Ingraham was correct in her assertions.

Though I do not make any assumption of intent to do so, I very much agree that those who refuse to stop Hillary, are assisting her efforts. On the campaign trail this year she has pledged to quadruple the current tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood. We currently send more than one half billion tax dollars to the organization that kills 387,000 children per year (and increasingly in turn makes more money from the selling of their body parts.) Hillary has pledged to quadruple these efforts.

So if you’re comfortable with Hillary Clinton spending two billion of our tax dollars (money you work hard for to feed your kids with) to kill upwards of 1.2 million children, then do nothing.

But the moral mandate to oppose Clinton goes far beyond the killing of unborn children.

Her economic policies would continue the choking regulations on small businesses. Doing so means fewer jobs are created. Fewer people feeding their families. Fewer people doing good with their tithes and charitable giving. Fewer resources to ever help those who have fallen through the cracks. She has no plan to address the issues of the urban centers. She has not met and formulated action plans with community leaders in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and DC. She has no plan to help end addiction, dependency, and entitlement drains. She is fine with allowing those who are suffering to continue to suffer, so long as they vote for her. This approach is morally wrong, not merely fiscally.

Her national security positions are impossible to trust. She openly flaunted national security concerns by installing and using a nearly completely unsecured server. Her shrug-of-the-shoulder approach to classified information being left vulnerable on her server stood in sharp contrast to nearly every military or intelligence official who has had their statuses revoked for much smaller infractions. Considering also that the FBI agents who worked the case investigating her unanimously felt she should never be given a security clearance again should be telling. Considering that the six DOJ attorneys who worked her case believed she should’ve been prosecuted should seal the deal as to whether the moral trust the nation will have to put in it’s top intelligence officer. Indifference to the law is as immoral as breaking it. Her willingness to ignore the plight of the boys in Benghazi, lie to their families faces and ask Congress “what difference it made” also speaks to her willful and immoral lack of care for those in her charge. She is morally compromised, and demonstrated it while serving in government.

Her approach to the rule of law speaks loudly to the lack of moral code she would continue to encourage at higher office. Everything from encouraging Black Lives Matter to go further in disturbing law and order in their protests, to making smarmy and arrogant jokes while wholesale denying things we later found out to be true speaks to her own willingness to skirt any law that is inconvenient for her. She is without equal in public brazenness and overly prideful in defying lawful orders, subpoenas, and court instruction. Not ironically those are usually issued because of an earlier refusal to comply with written laws.

Lastly and perhaps the most important reason that she must be opposed on moral grounds is very simple: we’re not merely electing one person to one position. The president will bring with them nearly 3000 bureaucrats. Which leads those not committed to stopping Hillary to answer some tough questions.

For instance, what’s the rigorous intellectual difference between what Laura Ingraham said and what conservatives have argued about democrats who claim to be pro-life but refuse to raise a finger to stop

Every argument made to vote for Bush in 2000 once Keyes and Bauer were out of the running was “he’s better than Gore… even if imperfect. Every argument made for McCain was that while he may have not been a perfect conservative we would get more from him than Obama. The same for Romney.

You fight the battle for purity in the primary, but you should fight for the survival of civilization in the general.

It’s not just Trump v Clinton. It’s Pence v. Kaine. It’s it’s Cristie vs. Lynch. It’s Ken Blackwell vs. Cheryl Mills. It’s a cabinet of competence vs a cabinet of corruption.

To continue to pretend that “doing nothing” is in some way being pro-life at this time is rigorously intellectually, and mathematically false.

It makes me uncomfortable to have to level such confrontation in writing. I have so many cherished friends who likely disagree with me here. But what I’ve said is true.

If you are not committed to stopping Hillary—especially on moral grounds—then you are helping her win.

And if good people choose to do nothing, then evil prospers.

Sir Edmund Burke would be the first to say so.

Why TRUMP is not pro-life!

Why does Donald Trump assert that he is pro-life?

It’s easy to understand that if he is running as a conservative for the GOP nomination this checked-box would be necessary to survive the primary process. He is running against two other candidates who have clear credentials on the matter, and if he were to be found to still be pro-abortion it would doom his chances of securing the nomination.It might also be because he is ashamed of the pro-abortion views he has held for most of his sixty-nine years on the planet. 

It might be that he is filled with wonder at the birth of his beautiful and precious new grandchild. 

But if he wants any of the rest of us to believe this assertion, he’d better do a lot more to convince us.

Why?

Because he gives zero indication that this assertion is anything more than lip service.

This past week alone he said more things under direct questioning that gives everyone associated with the pro-life worldview abject reason to reject his claims, than anything he has said on the campaign trail to date that affirms them.

Yet even earlier in the campaign his assertion was under constant dissonance with things he would say.

Early in the campaign he claimed he would “completely defund” Planned Parenthood, and asserted that the baby body parts scandal proved what a horrible organization they were. In less than a week his position adjusted to reasoning that Planned Parenthood was a necessary organization doing “lots of good” for women. His position shifted to defunding only the funds that go “to abortion.” His current position would leave in place the funding as is because Planned Parenthood makes the assertion that none of its current funding goes to providing abortions.

To be clear the half billion plus forty-two million additional dollars that we gave Planned Parenthood last year kept the lights on for every abortion procedure in the Planned Parenthood clinics. It paid the rent. It gave the suction machines electricity. It paid the salaries. To be clear Planned Parenthood should have all federal funding ended. And anyone who can’t take the ten seconds to read this paragraph to understand why, is not pro-life.

This past week Donald Trump also took a position that has stood contrary to the pro-life effort since it began. He asserted in response to a direct question and a direct follow up question from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that women who obtain abortions (if the procedure would become illegal) should in fact be punished.

In better than 90% of cases in America when a woman has an abortion performed, she has only in extremely seldom cases done it as a choice that she alone made. In more than 90% of cases there are other people—usually a man in her life—that push the woman into the decision. (So much for it being such a “choice” huh?)

The fact that he does not understand this plain reality… The fact that he does not seem to comprehend or in essence care about the women involved—and the likely punishment they endure in the process and for many years to come as a result of their own action… The fact that it didn’t cross his mind while saying it that it was not a wise response… 
Demonstrated that he is not pro-life.
In the next three days Trump claimed that his was the position of Ronald Reagan, his son attempted to argue for the justification of his “punishment” response on twitter, and finally they issued a written statement completely repudiating his original assertion and blaming the abortionist exclusively. Three positions in three days demonstrate that he is not pro-life.

On Sunday’s Face The Nation CBS News’ John Dickerson asks Trump to again clarify his series of odd and conflicting answers on what should be the easiest answer in a conservative’s wheelhouse of beliefs. Dickerson pressed Trump on whether abortion is murder. Again this is an easy answer to anyone who knows the issues involved. But Trump, lacking the moral insight to answer clearly, simply and finally (after a bit of uncomfortable squirming) lands on simply “disagreeing with it.”

At another moment Trump also says something rather unimaginable in today’s pro-life efforts: “At this moment, the laws are set, and I think we have to leave it that way.”
Leave it that way?

Well if we followed that advice, parental consent laws would never have been passed, partial birth abortions would never have been banned, nearly anyone who ever flunked medical school could open a clinic and charge $2k-$5k per procedure.

If we take the approach that the laws are set and we have to leave it that way, then it in essence means nothing to anyone to be pro-life.

And that is obviously what it means—or doesn’t—to Donald J. Trump.

A Special Place In Hell…

I never thought that Madeliene Albright was all-that-bright when she was Secretary of State. But to be candid she never spoke much. Nearly always a sour look on her face a woman who honestly I barely have a memory of ever speaking.

Some mystery is good. It allows you to think highly of people (or at least more so) until they disprove it.

This weekend in New Hampshire Ms. Albright easily erased any even neutral feelings I may have been willing to credit her past stoic ways for.

Stumping for another former Secretary of State, Albright decided to go all out in the arm twisting to sex-guilt the women vote in New Hampshire.

Telling the women at Hillary’s rally that there’s a “special place in hell for women who don’t help women” the implication was: vote for Hillary or you’re off the Island. (As if any nice normal person wants to be on an island with Hillary and Albright to begin with.)

And it’s especially ironic that it’s being said in support of Hillary’s campaign. For was it not Mrs. Clinton who stood by while her husband continually cheated on her? Was it not Mrs. Clinton who stood by while he raped women? Was it not Mrs. Clinton who stood by him as he physically assaulted them–biting and tearing their faces until he had finished his sexual acts against them?

Was it not Hillary who stood by and then executed payback against the very women her cheating, abusive, rapist husband did his actions against?

Did she help those women? Is there a special place in hell for her?

While I was pondering the offensive ploy Hillary/Albright were implementing this weekend I also found myself on a documentary shoot.

Over the course of three and half hours on Sunday I shot the stories of no less than five women.

These women had all found themselves experiencing crisis pregnancies in recent days. 

Their stories were all so similar. 

Unexpectedly pregnant. Scared. And visiting Planned Parenthood clinics they came away saying “the people in that place were awful in how they treated me.”

Then all of them had found their way–via different paths–to a Crisis Pregnancy Center. This place is headed by my friend Debbie (a woman) who heads a staff (of mostly women,) who make it a sincere calling of their lives to help the women come through their doors.

They do ultrasounds, they offer lots of counseling, support, and readiness–BEFORE the baby arrives. They then continue with supplies, support, life skills training, parenting classes, post pardem assistance,  spiritual support, encouragement and friendship for long after the birth of the child.

In Hillary and Albright’s minds the “women helping women” in this narrative would clearly be the awful monsters at Planned Parenthood.

Likewise they would argue that because my friend Debbie and her staff (many of whom volunteer their time) are as much pro-unborn-women as they are pro-angry-oxygenarian women that they have a “special place in hell” waiting for them.

Not surprisingly it appears that Secretary Albright is as bad a theologian as she is feminist, or world figure. From a Biblical perspective Jesus spoke about a “special place in hell” of sorts when it came to those who would willfully harm children.

He argued it would be better for such to have a 2000lb millstone chained to their neck and dropped into the ocean.

Sounds hellish to me…

The truth is Ms. Albright and Ms. Clinton only care about women who will advance their own agenda. And if you fall outside those parameters they wish you dead. 

Or in Hillary’s cases, raped, assaulted and facially disfigured…