Abortion, RINOs and the 2008 Election

by Daria DiGiovanni

 

One of the tragic consequences of the 2008 election (aside from Barack Obama becoming president) has been the accelerated attempt by so-called “Big Tent” Republicans to silence social conservatives – or more specifically, to stifle any dialogue pertaining to the sanctity of life. These moderates falsely believe, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary (e.g. the failed campaigns of George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008), that sprinting to the left is somehow the panacea for what persistently ails the Republican Party, and that such “private matters” as abortion are best left out of the public square. (I’d be remiss of course, if I failed to note that Senator McCain is indeed pro-life, a fact he strongly affirmed during his forum with Pastor Rick Warren last year; however, this just proves that “half-way conservatism” is also a recipe for electoral failure).

 

Even some I know to be “three-legged stool” conservatives are buying into this nonsense. At a recent meeting, a friend of mine expressed her concern for Republican candidates who invoke God and uphold their pro-life beliefs on the campaign trail, as if it’s a crime to actually honor one’s moral foundation and defend innocent, defenseless human life.

 

With all due respect, I vehemently disagree. And I will never apologize for believing life begins at conception. However, based on my own experience, I would also urge conservative candidates to expand the discussion when it comes to the abortion debate. For example, few people understand why, from a federalist perspective, Roe v. Wade is bad law; unelected, activist judges usurped power from the hands of the people, thus enacting legislation that was not within the scope of their authority. Instead, the legality of abortion, along with ancillary issues like parental consent, should have been determined by “we the people” through the ballot box. Even most pro-choice Americans I know favor restrictions and abhor partial-birth abortion – undoubtedly the most brutal, horrific and inhuman procedure medical science has ever created.

 

Therefore, conservative candidates can start with the federalist argument. But it doesn’t end there. Why not attack Obama and his alignment with Planned Parenthood? We now have the most radical pro-abortion president ever presiding over the Oval Office, a man who as state senator could not even bring himself to vote for legislation to mandate medical care for babies who somehow managed to survive late-term abortions. This particular piece of legislation, The Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was narrow in scope, and in no way threatened Roe v. Wade. Yet, Mr. Obama and his far-left base have more harrowing concern for the rights of radical Jihadists than they do for innocents. 

 

Waterboard a known terrorist to glean information to save thousands of American lives? A moral blight on our country! Throw a defenseless infant into a soiled utility room and leave him/her to die? An example of our country’s progress in terms of women’s rights!

 

Got that?    

 

Further, those who seek public office on the conservative side of the aisle could excoriate Planned Parenthood itself for repeatedly refusing to comply with the law by reporting the rapes of minors. Intrepid investigative journalist Lila Rose of Live Action.org has done the lion’s share of work in this area; her undercover reporting puts the mainstream media to shame and exposes the hypocrisy of liberals everywhere who’ve falsely named themselves the “champions of women” and the proponents of “choice”.

 

And yet, Planned Parenthood continually receives taxpayer money, representing a whopping 33% of their income. Why aren’t conservative candidates railing about it? Why aren’t they enlightening the electorate about the organization’s founder Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist who openly professed her belief that certain races and ethnicities should be extinguished for the greater good?   

 

Quoth Sanger:

 

It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stoop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.

 

Sounds suspiciously like something Lenin, Stalin and Hitler might say! And gee, weren’t all three of them racists? It might behoove prospective conservative office-holders to enlighten socially conservative blacks and hispanics on a little history. 

 

Which brings me to another important point. Recently on social networking sites, the question has been raised as to why so many Jewish Americans, 78% to be exact, voted for the Hamas-endorsed candidate over John McCain. From my own anecdotal evidence, gleaned from various conversations, I can sum it up in three words: Roe versus Wade.

 

Standing in line to watch The Third Jihad at the Muvico in Boca Raton, Florida just weeks before the election, I began chatting with some very nice Jewish ladies, all of whom were well beyond child-bearing age. Without imposing my own viewpoints, I patiently listened for a while as they all expressed their disgust for Governor Sarah Palin, who’d earlier that day enthusiastically expressed her pro-life commitment at a political rally. Apparently, Sarah’s belief in the sanctity of unborn life was a much greater threat to them than the facts that Israel’s enemy Hamas had openly endorsed Obama, or that his career as State Senator for Illinois had been launched at the home of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.

 

No, for these ladies, it was all about “a woman’s right to choose.” They were horrified by the prospect of a Republican President or Vice-President somehow overturning Roe v. Wade.  And yet when I assured them that neither McCain nor Palin would have the authority to render such a decision, but in a worst-case scenario (at least in their minds) made the federalist case for abortion law, it was as if I was speaking a foreign language!   

 

In the final analysis, liberalism is such an ingrained, if illogical mindset that conservative candidates cannot possibly convert more than a scant few of them. However, this is still a center-right country, and by educating voters on some very real truths they will never get from the mainstream media, they can win their support without compromising their pro-life principles. As for the RINOs? I suggest they immediately cease the “listening” tours in favor of something known as real leadership. Perhaps they could watch a few You Tube videos of Ronald Reagan as a refresher course on how it’s done.     

 

 

Popularity: 1% [?]