Tuesday, September 11, 2007

HUMAN LIFE PROPOSAL -- Plus a Dim View of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

IMPORTANT NOTICE: http://larryperrault.blogspot.com/ prints today (Tuesday) a letter by Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod -- the far right branch of Lutheranism) leader Dr. Laurence White (Houston) regarding abortion. I wrote a vigorous dissent on Larry's site, because I believe Dr. White is little more than a member of the pro-life "enterprise," rather than a person seriously involved in protecting the sanctity of life at all stages, from conception to natural death. Tomorrow, I'm going to propose a constitutional amendment on life -- one forbidding most abortions, those that occur in the second and third-trimester of pregnancy -- that has a decent chance of passing. This will be not be the imaginary "amendment" favored by some presidential candidates -- an amendment that has zero chance of ever passing. Instead, my amendment proposal will be one supported by the vast majority of Americans. I also support federal AND state legislation mandating the expenditure of money and the providing of counselling in order to encourage adoption. It's frankly immoral to approach the issue of abortion in such a way that it never gets resolved in a decent, humane way in keeping with the Bible (which doesn't say much about the issue, except perhaps for a few passages in Exodus) and the English Common Law that guided the Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitiuion. I hope at some point leading candidates for the Republican nomination -- including Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter -- embrace a proposal something like mine. Ending legal abortion in the U.S. is part of a process, and it's time to begin it now!


Note: At the end of this piece I note what's going on at an important blog: http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/

"Secretary Donald Rumsfeld flat-out refused to leave the building [Pentagon on 9/11]." -- Barbara Starr today on CNN

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane." - - Marcus Aurelius

September 11: This is an important day in the history of the United States of America. "Time can never fully dull the pain," as Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this morning. Over the course of today and tomorrow, I'd like to share some of the memories that I have of that day and the ones that followed.

However, I'd first like to focus on the two main Democratic candidates: Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. Granted, I've said some positive words about both of them, but here's the bottom line: I don't have much respect for either of them.

My image of Mrs. Clinton, who may very well be my President and yours, is of her making a statement that was shrill, cruel, and demagogic: "THIS IS GEORGE BUSH'S WAR!"

Oh, really?

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, a country ruled by a bloodthirsty tyrant who had killed millions of people, launched two awful wars, and had a history of providing sanctuary to terrorists and using weapons of mass destruction. Mrs. Clinton voted as a result of the same intelligence information provided to George W. Bush.

In the United States, as Mrs. Clinton should know, when the President launches a military action, it is not HIS war, but rather OURS.

It's OUR war because we have a sacred responsibility to the men and women who are fighting it. It's OUR war because winning it affects the country's ability to function effectively. It's OUR war because we must refrain from statements that help the enemy. It's OUR war because comments made about it on purely political grounds are immoral.

In recent times, Senator John McCain said that there are consequences connected with the Iraq War that transcend his ability to become President. His point was that what happens to John McCain is a lot less important than what happens to our country.

Does Mrs. Clinton love her country? I have no firm sense of what the word "country" means to her. To people like John McCain, war hero, our nation means not less than everything.

However, if Mrs. Clinton believes the country has any more important duty than electing her President, she needs to let us know. Does she really believe Iraq is "George Bush's war" -- as opposed to the war of those fighting and dying in it? I don't know if such questions are relevant to "that woman," to take a phrase from her husband.

This is (mainly) a "warrior nation," as former Senator Moynihan called us. Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, testifying to a Senate loaded with people focused almost exclusively on the next election, represent that warrior nation. I'm a member of it, and so are most of you.

In contrast, Mrs. Clinton inhabits a nation that consists mainly of one person -- herself. She would no more fight and die for this country than she would convert to Republicanism. She may well become President, but she doesn't deserve it.

As for Senator Obama, my new correspondent Ancient Mariner -- a naval veteran -- is leaning toward voting for him. I ask the Mariner to think back to the early Democratic debate, where Obama confronted the question of what he, as President, would do if he heard that terrorists had HIT (with weapons of mass destruction?) two American cities.

He said he would launch an investigation of the intelligence services to determine who was responsible. As I put it, perhaps uncharitably but I believe accurately, he would conduct a witch hunt.

Would he respond militarily to such a terrorist atrocity? He didn't indicate that he would.

I fear that the world Barack Obama inhabits is one that reflects the Democratic bias to conduct endless, after-the-fact Senate and House hearings. It's not a world where the President devotes himself to PREVENTING attacks. It's not a world where the chief-executive takes personal responsibility for the bad things that happen on his watch.

Also, The Economist recently raised questions about Obama's comment that he would seek to impose "fines" on mortgage companies that had engaged in unwise lending practices. As The Economist noted, imposing heavy fines on mortgage companies short of cash and laying off workers would be extremely unwise.

What do I think of Obama's proposal that, under certain circumstances, we might invade Pakistan, an ally -- and one with nuclear weapons? I believe it borders on the preposterous. Let's see, the anti-war guy wants to invade Pakistan? It's senseless.

As readers of this column know, I'm often critical of (some) Republicans, (some) conservatives, and (some) evangelicals. However, I'm much more concerned about the Democratic candidates. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to make statements that raise questions about whether they're really ready to govern this country.

After 9/11, politics as usual -- iresponsible remarks about "George Bush's War" and speculations about invading allies -- is not acceptable. If Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe they are ready to hold the nation's highest office, they need to apply -- soon -- for membership in the Warrior Nation. They need to stop the political pandering and demagoguery -- now.


Note: This column is dedicated to Peter Paul Domiano, Industry, NY, 1st Lt. USMC, and Thomas Cartwright, Industry, NY, Captain, USMC, my friends, both of whom died for their beloved country in Viet Nam. Peter, a graduate of the University of Virginia, was the manager of our (very good) high school basketball team and brother of my classmate, Judy Domiano; Thomas. a graduate of Penn State University, was the brother of our class valedictorian, Richard, and a fellow basketball player at Rush-Henrietta H.S. At one point, Industry, NY, near Rush and Henrietta, NY, was the town with the highest per capita number of soldiers killed in action. "Time goes on, but some memories never fade." I'd also like to salute two other Marines, young ones, named Matt Franchik and Adam Giran, both very much alive (thank the Lord) & both outstanding football players on a "national powerhouse" in high school, and residents of Mt. Lebanon, PA. "Oh traveler, tell the Spartans we lie here obedient to their word." When compared to Senators Clinton and Obama, the superb human beings I've mentioned here might as well be from another planet.

Sanity Anyone? PLEASE CHECK OUT SANITY102'S BLOG (http://outsideofthebox.townhall.com/ ), ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES ONLINE. In recent days, she's done so wonderful columns. Note also Jim's comment there that the term "conservative" increasingly seems synonymous with "extreme right-wing bigots."

Here's a response I made to her recent writings: I agree with Jim, and I now avoid using the word "conservative." Increasingly, it refers to people loaded with malice and devoid of love or understanding.

Sanity, you are one of the most thoughtful people online. I believe the country faces a serious question of what we are to do with Moveon.org types (who did the recent Petraeus smear). You raise the "right" to abortion, which no Founder ever foresaw as somehow a "right."

The Constitution now provides other "freedoms" that the Founders never envisioned. Does anyone ever seriously believe that the Founders believed that "nude dancing" -- or things a whole lot worse than nude dancing -- constituted speech? In writing the Second Amendment did the Founders really mean that inner-city teens should all have a personal assault rifle -- something inconceivable in the 18th century -- to kill each other and police? They would be absolutely appalled. The U.S. has now become "Murder Central" for the civilized world, and that's something we can't tolerate.

If freedom of speech (and press) is a license to print things like "Petraeus or Betray Us," then it is a luxury we can't afford. We need to discuss these issues seriously rather than fantasize that the Founders would have been foursquare behind sleaze-bags dropping F-bombs on TV and America-haters defaming distinguished generals. I am going to keep recommending your site to everyone whose attention I can get. As Justice Arthur Goldberg once stated, "The Constiution is NOT a suicide pact."

5 comments:

Christopher said...

Steve, I am seriously thinking of becoming politically pro-choice if a Dem wins in 08. I'll always be pro-life personally, but (sorry if I'm repeating) if we fail to win the next court seat, it will be a decade or more before we even get close again to a 5-4 overturn of Roe, not to mention the time that continues to pass to be considered legal precedent. If I turn pro-choice, it'll be Rudy style that doesn't focus on Roe and instead limiting the number of abortions.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Christopher, I hope you'll embrace my Human Life Amendment. I also hope that the day after Election Day, 2008, you'll join a big crowd of people BEGINNING to lay the groundwork for the election of Sarah Heath Palin as the SECOND female President of the U.S. P.S. Don't vote for Hillary. I can't stand four years of pants suits. I promise never to propose the (pro-Sarah) slogan that says, "Vote for the one with the pretty legs." :-)

steve

P.S. Where the heck is Branch, Michigan? And what is wrong with the U of M football team?

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Note: As a member of the Les Kinsolving club of eldering writers, I do agree with him that Hillary Clinton is pretty. We old guys tend to lower our standards somewhat. If she jogged with GWB, she'd probably have better legs and could ditch the pants suits. I want Sarah to take me to DC when she becomes President. I could be in charge of Old People Relations or some such thing.

Sanity102 said...

I am sorry Steve, but I doubt your "modest" Human Life proposal will work either. Women know what abortion destroys, believe me. And a 5 year old knows what a woman carries when she is pregnant.

In order to have an abortion, one has to deny the humanity of the baby...and if the baby is simply cells, then why stop at 10 weeks?

For me, I'll take anything at this point. I celebrated the SCOTUS upholding partial birth abortion ban...I'd cheer for a ban after 10 weeks...but again, I doubt it will happen.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

Sanity, many women agree with you, but a good number don't, looking at abortion as slightly more significant than gettin a wart removed. The statistics seem to show that many women feel they have no choice. Their husbands (or parents) pressure them to get an abortion. In some cases, they're having trouble feeding themselves. In some cases (many cases) they think they're too young for childbearing. If we're ever to DO anything abortion, we need to look at each excuse for having an abortion as something we can help overcome. The proposals I make will be (fairly) expensive but they will work. I don't see anything else on the horizon that can make that claim.