Wednesday, September 29, 2010


ABATTOIR:"A public slaughterhouse."

In August 1941 Heinrich Himmler travelled to Minsk, as he wanted to see with his own eyes how the einsatzgruppen were performing their extermination campaign against the Jews. While there, he witnessed 100 Jews being shot in a ditch outside the town.

SS-Obergruppenf├╝hrer Karl Wolff described the event in his diary: “Himmler's face was green. He took out his handkerchief and wiped his cheek where a piece of brain had squirted up on to it. Then he vomited.”

Wolff records that after shakily recovering his composure, Himmler proceeded to give the SS men a lecture on following the "highest moral law of the Party" in carrying out their work.

Though Himmler was revolted, he did not change his ideology, no matter how gruesome its actualization proved. Instead, he gave orders that a more efficient means of killing be devised.

Later, after the war was ended General Eisenhower would demand that German citizens be forced to go to Buchenwald not only to see the results of Himmler’s efficiency but actually to load the corpses on wagons for disposal.

Time and again the German folk would say, “We didn’t know.”

Blindness similar to Himmler’s prevails among the ideologues of the “pro choice” crowd. No matter how gruesome the actualities of the mega buck abortion industry, no compromise is accepted. Abortion on demand throughout pregnancy is adhered to steadfastly, though the means of killing the pre-born may vary according to efficiency and assurance of result; namely, a dead baby.

And so the carnage goes on virtually unobstructed.

But once in a while, the veil of secrecy is rent and the entire populace is given a glimpse of the horrors of the lucrative abortion industry.

On August 12 in Elkton, MD, just across our state line, an 18 year old girl who had been 21 weeks pregnant was rushed to the hospital. Her uterus, bowel and vagina had been pierced by one Dr. Nicola Riley, who flew in from Utah every other week to do late term abortions.

The abortion had been initiated by New Jersey abortionist Steven Chase Brigham, who runs a chain of 15 abortion mills. He had inserted laminaria to dilate the teenager’s cervix so the baby could be dismembered and pulled out piece by piece. But things did not go according to plan. Not only did Riley lacerate the girl’s organs, but the abortion was incomplete. The baby’s head was detached and pushed through the uterine wall into the abdominal cavity.

The semi-conscious teen was dropped off at the hospital by Riley and Brigham in a rental car. Riley then left the bleeding patient to go perform another abortion. The girl herself was flown to John Hopkins hospital where, at last report, she remains in critical condition.

When police raided Brigham’s Elkton “clinic,” they found 32 late term fetuses—one of which was 35-36 weeks gestation--tossed in a freezer. A search for documents revealed there were no medical records for most of the women and girls who had undergone abortions.

I wonder if the police threw up.

Certainly they, like Elkton residents, came face to face with the revolting and grim reality of the abortion industry. Unlike the German citizens who supposedly “Didn’t know what was going on,” Elkton police and residents now can’t use the “I didn’t know” excuse.

They know.

So what happens to the 32 tiny flash frozen corpses?

What may not be known to Elkton residents is that sale of fetal parts is a lucrative companion business to the abortion industry. As the aborted infants have no status under law, they can be and are sold for use in medical research. The biggest demand for human fetal parts comes from pharmaceutical and biological firms, government and university research laboratories.

Doubtless the pre-born frozen babies were going to be sold to such organizations, some of which place orders specifying the body parts come from live survivors of the abortion process. No frozen goods for those picky types. They want fresh samples.

Now Elkton residents know this, too.

So the question for Elkton residents (along with the rest of US citizens) is why, now that they know exactly what is going on in their town, they would continue to tolerate the grisly practices of abortionists like Steven Brigham and Nicola Riley?

Other questions Elktonians should think about: How are the practices of abortionists Brigham and Riley any different from the execution of Jews by the SS? How is the sale of fetal body parts different than turning Jews into soap and lampshades?

Elkton residents now know there has been a baby abattoir in their back yard. While it is presently under investigation and closed down, there is no legal reason why other enterprising abortionists can’t open yet another “clinic.”

So what are they to do? What can they do?

They must work to stop the carnage. They must cease looking the other way. They must stop the denials of the truth and look at it in those frozen, tiny faces.


Because now they know.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Religion Matters

Those who believe citizens should “Keep religion out of politics” betray a lack of knowledge about both. For the truth of the matter is the two have always been inextricably intertwined--never more so than today.

The current president as well as Delaware’s Democrat nominee for the senate, Chris Coons (among others either already in or presently seeking high office), hold strong religious/political beliefs based on a contemporary distortion of Christianity known as liberation theology.

President Obama learned much of his theology as a congregant of Jeremiah Wright, whereas Mr. Coons became a convert to the new theology during his stay in Africa and through his studies at Yale Divinity School. Both men share similar world views; views that infuse and inform their politics.

For those unfamiliar with theological trends, liberation theology as propounded by its founder, Gustavo Gutierrez and his followers and imitators such as James Cone and the aforementioned Mr. Wright, sees salvation not as an individual relationship with Christ, but as a collective sanctification of an entire society. For the proponent of liberation theology salvation is both social and political.

To put it another way, sin is no longer primarily of individual origin (original sin) but is collective, finding its origins in social structures which must be dismantled and rebuilt according to new salvific principles. Basically, those principles involve integrating the Marxist critique of capitalism within the framework of a re-interpreted Christianity. The concept of individual sin and individual redemption is replaced with the idea of collective sin stratified in class and social structures which need radical, “fundamental change” if humanity, especially the poor and oppressed of humanity, is to be collectively saved.

A new communist/socialist/”Christian” economic system is to replace capitalism, which is seen as inherently evil and oppressive. Capitalism is seen as creating poverty, fostering oppression of minorities and favoring only a few rich people.
Further, liberation theology proponent James Cone, who heavily influenced Jeremiah Wright, saw the most oppressive class as white, believing white racism alone was responsible for the oppression of minority status blacks, but he did not stop there. He not only integrated Marxist economic thought with Christian belief, but called for a complete liberation of blacks from racism, capitalism and imperialism.

Our current president’s domestic and foreign policies are explicable in terms of black liberation theology, as he fights all three fronts—racism, capitalism and imperialism—from his position in the White House. Further, his foreign policy is an offshoot of liberation theology in that it exhibits strong “third worldism;” that is, a belief that the poverty in Africa and elsewhere is the fault of Western capitalist structures which keep the boot on the neck of impoverished nations. All wealth has the stench of unjust gain, and only redistributing unjust gains made at the expense of the poor will redeem society. Third-worldism also involves giving support to Third World national liberation movements against the West, as the West is the premier example of collective guilt by virtue of its sinful social structure.

In sum, for those whose beliefs are based on liberation theology, salvation for the world involves ridding the US of its faulty capitalist economic and social structures and leveling the classes by distributing the wealth of the rich. Thus both the US and the entire world will be collectively redeemed. That is why our president speaks so often of “collective salvation.”

The ferocious drive of the left to radically transform and fundamentally change the social and economic structures of the US and the entire West—to say nothing of the entire world-- then, often arises from their strongly held religious/political world view, a view which amounts to forcing a religion down the throats of the masses.

The above thoughts are pertinent to the hurly burly of the current senatorial contest in Delaware. For Delawareans, it is important to know Mr. Coons’ background and convictions are those of liberation theology. As Delaware is the corporate capital of the nation—capitalism defined!—it might not be a good idea to elect a man whose theological and political weltanschauung is intrinsically anti-corporation, anti-capitalist and anti-rich (anti-business class). It might be ruinous to elect a senator who has already indicated redistribution of wealth by heavy taxation is a cornerstone of his world view.

There is a reason Mr. Coon is attracting favorable notice from the White House. He shares Obama’s liberationist beliefs and has already indicated he is on board with the Obama agenda of radical restructuring of America—"fundamental change."

Delawareans should beware.

Someone else’s religion is about to be forced on you.

***Post script on an article just found: It appears I have a doppelganger in Jeffrey Lord of American Spectator, whose article on Coons and liberation theology provides much more exhaustive coverage than my own piece on the subject. For those interested, go to the following link:

Friday, September 17, 2010


Every candidate for office dreams of the day his opponent is tagged with an unforgettable, indelibly etched, iconic moment. Usually it’s a photograph, but it really doesn’t matter what the moment consists of. The opposition is doomed because the event is emblazoned on the voters’ memory and nothing else computes. It’s no use. It’s over. Speeches are no longer remembered, policy statements fall on deaf ears, the candidate’s protests and explanations automatically muted. The candidate is doomed.

Who can forget helmeted little Michael Dukakis with his dopey grin riding in M1 Abrams tank? How could the guy who released Willie Horton pull off a warrior stance? It was a risible and unforgettable image. Dukakis never recovered.
People are still laughing over Jimmy Carter and the rabid swamp rabbit incident. According to the eye witness account, the rodent came at the canoe, “hissing menacingly, its teeth flashing and nostrils flared and making straight for the president.” Would the beast had been a bear instead of a rabbit, as the image of Carter flailing at the desperate creature with a canoe paddle seemed to define his timid presidency perfectly.

Or, who could conceal (admittedly undeserving) snickering over President Ford’s pratfall down the stairs of Air Force 1? To make matters worse, he even fell up the same stairs while wearing ...well,uh…an extremely unattractive and clownish brown and gold plaid jacket. The apparent clumsiness of someone who was actually a fine athlete was a godsend for the opposition, who used the images to their own nefarious ends. Ford was not helped by the fact he made a serious foreign policy goof by claiming during televised debate that Eastern Europe was not under the control of Russia. The clumsy image stuck. He was done for.

But iconic images are in the making for today’s races, most notably one gifted by Harry Reid to the O’Donnell campaign. Reid has called Mr. Coons, O’Donnell’s opposition, “My pet.”

Oh, dear.

No sooner had he spoken than Michelle Malkin had the perfect photo shopped image up on her web site, the headline saying it all: “Creepy Harry Reid Hands O’Donnell her First General Election Ad on a Silver Platter.” Here is the unfortunate and soon to be iconic image of Ms. O’Donnell’s opponent:

My guess is that Coons won’t recuperate any time soon from this image, as Reid’s fatally condescending and diminishing words indicate to every voter that Mr. Coons is not his own man, but is merely a pet for Harry Reid and the Democrat establishment. Many commentators have said and written as much, but the iconic Gollum image will fix that perception in the mind of the public as nothing else would.

In a way, that’s too bad, as the policy differences between Ms. O’Donnell and Mr. Coons could not be more starkly delineated or more deserving of deep and serious discussion. After all, one candidate stands for Reagan style conservatism and the other stands for the Obama agenda. They are, regardless of iconic images, representative in symbolic and real terms of the politics dividing our country.

Nonetheless, we can doubtless expect more photo shopped images of Mr. Coons, whose physiognomy will now appear in a burst of creative and unflattering images put together by busy computer geeks working in their basements.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Richter Magnitude 10

Now that they’ve experienced the equivalent of a 10 on the political Richter scale, will the leadership of the Delaware GOP get the message? Today and the months and years ahead afford the current leaders of the Republican party an opportunity to survey the rubble remaining after their Castle was demolished. The question is whether or not they will seek to cooperate in rebuilding and reforming a party that must include the conservative wing so long ignored, or at the very most, cynically utilized to consolidate their power base. Or will they retreat to underground bunkers where they snipe away? Will they prefer a Gotterdammerung rather than accommodation?

In any case, “Moderate” Republican leaders must deal with the enormity of the ground shaking victories of two renegade candidates they neither endorsed nor supported. Both the picks of the Republican convention lost, despite the spending rivers of money and the mounting vicious attacks against fellow Republicans. Both candidates won without any support from their party—nada, zero, zilch.

The ruling class lost and lost big. They may not regain their standing any time soon—if ever.

Some modest predictions: I don’t think there will be any reaching across the aisle by Republican “moderates,” not, at least, any time soon. I also don’t think they will begin to rebuild by reconsidering their contempt for and denigration of the Tea Party movement that was instrumental in the O’Donnell victory. I fully expect the “moderates” of the Delaware GOP to pull a Karl Rove attitude from now until after the election. That is because I think that aside from a nod to fiscal responsibility, they are far more temperamentally and ideologically aligned with Democrats than they are with conservatives.

The above leads to another observation concerning the unseemly crowing of Democrats over a victory not yet won.

Do Democrats suppose there are no disaffected Democrats in Delaware who will vote for O’Donnell and Urquhart because they also are fed up with the radical leftist turn their party has taken? Do they really think there are no Democrats who are horrified by the runaway debt, the expansion of federal power, and the anti-business stance of the Democratic party--just to name a few concerns? Do they suppose the party ranks will present and hold a solid, impenetrable phalanx any more than Delaware Republicans have presented a unified front?

Do they suppose all Democrat party members are so loyal they’ll stick with a party that leans toward a socialist agenda, stands against parental choice for the education of their children, generally scoffs at religious values, scorns pro-life beliefs, and undermines small business—all the while continuing to raise taxes?
Perhaps most tellingly, do they suppose Democrats don’t see the depressing reality of the US and Delaware economy?

If so, they have missed the titanic fissure in both parties. They have missed the resurgence of a conservatism that transcends party affiliation. They have ignored the disgust of Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike with the ruling elite who have not listened to or felt, much less responded to the tremors under their feet.

In fact, I believe we are about to see a political reconfiguration that shakes both parties to the foundations, a reconfiguration that combines fiscal and social conservatism. It started with tremors of dissatisfaction and then swelled to the size of an earthquake--angry repudiation of the current state of affairs.

But we’ve seen nothing yet in comparison with what’s to come.

More political earthquakes on the scale of Richter Magnitude 10 are on their way.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010


At the time Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his “I have a Dream” Speech on the steps of Lincoln Memorial, few would have guessed the speech would eventually find its way into the text books of American high school students as an example of one of the most inspiring speeches ever given.
Most Americans know the substance of the speech, which was a plea for all Americans to be judged by their character and not by the color of their skins. And most Americans have forgiven and forgotten King’s own character flaws, whether they were those of serial adultery or suspected plagiarism. He is forgiven because he had a dream so transcendent and powerful its soaring message rose above his character flaws.

It is most often so. Tolstoy and Ghandi, two men King drew upon for inspiration, were also deeply flawed. Tolstoy, best known for his interpretation of a gentle, communal and deeply pacifist Christianity, was often abusively cruel to his long-suffering wife. Ghandi, whose principles of peaceful non-violence have been widely imitated—most notably by MLK--had strange personal practices such as drinking urine and testing his vows of celibacy by sleeping with young women.

Yet both had dreams that inspired millions.

Good dreamers are most often mere men and women with feet of clay. They are usually acutely aware of their shortcomings, their weaknesses and frailties. That is why they want each human being to have the opportunity to transcend their sins and weaknesses, to dream of being better, to take the opportunities to pick themselves up and to try, try again.

Good dreamers dream with you. They want you to have freedom to achieve your own dreams, your own God-given potential, regardless of your skin color, class or gender. Those who dream with you want you and your children to be enabled by freedom. They want the burdens of state taken off your back, the overweening plethora of laws, rules and regulations whittled down.

But dark dreamers say, “I have a dream for you.” They want their perfect dreams for a utopian society to prevail over you and everyone else. Dark dreamers, most often those who think of themselves as perfect people, have templates for humanity, molds into which every human being is to be poured. Dark dreamers think their template is perfect for you--but not so much for them. Most often the dark dreams come in the guise of absolute equality, a strict egalitarianism which has its roots in fantastic unreality, is animated solely by power and ambition and achieved by force of the state.

Today the differences between good and bad dreams have never been so clear. As usual, the visions are divided into “Right” and “Left.” As the famous political philosopher Erik von Kuelnelt-Leddihn wrote, the Left is and always has been the “Great Menace…[The Left believes] in a state insured, government-prescribed, and—to make matters worse—socially endorsed collectivism [in which]our liberty, our Western personality, our spiritual growth, our true happiness is at stake."

Kuelnelt-Leddihn continues:

"All the great dynamic isms of the last two hundred years have been mass movements attacking—even as they mouthed the word ‘freedom’—the liberty, the independence of the person. This was done programmatically in the name of all sorts of high-and even low-sounding ideals: nationality, race better living standards, social justice, security, ideological conviction, restoration of ancient rights-- a happier world for all. But in reality, the driving motor of these movements was always the mad ambition of intellectuals—oratorically or, at least, literarily gifted—and the successful mobilization of the masses filled with envy and a thirst for revenge.” [Add to that list an anti-religious bias and a desire for uniformity, a ‘paradise’ in which everyone is the same. Parentheses mine.]

The Right, on the other hand, stands against statist power and for personal freedom. The Right is committed not to change for change’s sake, but to what is eternally true and valid, seeking either to “restore or the reinstall it, regardless of whether it seems obsolete…The ‘Man of the Right’ does not have a time-bound mind, but a sovereign mind. [He] stands for liberty, a free, unprejudiced form of thinking a readiness to preserve traditional values” as well as for a commitment to the sanctity of human life, as each life is unique and irreplaceable.

Dreams of the Right are dreamt by and held to by imperfect people who believe in transcendent values that hold for all societies in all times and places, values which create maximum individual freedom.

In sum, the dream of the Right is measured not by the person, but by its Truth.

In view of the upcoming elections, what does the above mean? It means you have a choice to vote for those who uphold the good dream or to ally yourself with those who uphold a dark dream; with those who will dream with you or with those who have a dream for you.

Realize that those who dream good dreams will be, like Martin Luther King, Jr., flawed human beings just like you.

But do what you must.

Choose your dream.