Look On the Right Side

Is Abortion the Thing That Most Angers God?

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Wed, 08 Jun 2016 23:27:00 +0000

There are varying opinions among Christians about abortion.

Catholics sometimes blame Protestants for the decriminalization of abortion. They may be right. In the '60s, it was often Protestant Republicans who argued in favor of abortion against the Catholic Democrats who (mostly) regarded abortion as anathema.

I say "mostly" because then-Gov. Ronald Reagan (R-CA) says he approached Catholic and Protestant religious leaders for advice when faced with the choice of whether to approve abortion in California in limited circumstances. He was met with confused, uninformed and contradictory responses, mostly from clergy who had never thought about it.

Some Catholics regard abortion as a necessary evil, out of compassion for struggling moms. But these are the same Catholics who regard everything in the Bible as unimportant beside caring for fellow men and women through charity, welfare, etc. (or making the taxpayers care for them).

The Protestant opposition I've heard centers around three areas:

We live in a broken world. No one can fix it until Jesus returns.

The spreading of the Gospel is the only commission in the Bible. Nothing else matters.

The Bible says nothing about abortion. Why are we getting involved?

I want to get the first two out of the way quickly so I can address the third.

Yes, the world is broken. But why did Jesus throw the moneychangers out of the Temple? Wasn't the world broken back then? What did He hope to achieve? Why did Jesus heal? Wasn't the world broken? Why did He call upon us to care for orphans and widows? If the world is broken, by this first point of logic, what lasting good would it do?

Yes, we are called to spread the Gospel. That's how we save lives in Eternity, not just in the present. But Jesus, again, called upon us to care for widows and orphans, to be winsome, to train up our children... Someone who thinks the Gospel is the only important commission in the Bible hasn't paid due heed to the full context of the Bible.

Those who recognized calls to other moral imperatives - not just regarding behavior, but calls to action - are the Christians who stopped the slaughter of slaves in gladiatorial combat, who banned slavery, and who campaigned for civil rights for Blacks and women. There is a long history of Christian moral activism, and we'd be a lot poorer as a world without it.

What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?

Since I want to focus on a very specific, but fundamental, point, I'll refer to a comprehensive page at American Right to Life for a long list and analysis of anti-abortion scripture.

Did Protestants in the 1960s believe the Bible said anything about abortion? I must - charitably (perhaps too much so) - assume they did not. To use the example about Ronald Reagan mentioned above, it's very possible that there was widespread ignorance of what the Bible said about that, and a lot of other things, in Protestant churches in the 1960s.

Not that that was a condition unique to the 1960s. This issue persists to the present day, which is the primary reason why abortion is still an issue, and why Christian mothers, and even pastors (!!!) take their kids to have abortions.

In general, it should be obvious to anyone who has studied the Bible that it condemns abortion. We are told "Do not kill the innocent," (Exodus 23:7 - The 10 Commandments). We are told when life begins (Psalm 139 & Jeremiah 1:5). We are given specifics as to punishment for killing an unborn child (Exodus 21:22-25, which provides a moderate penalty for causing premature birth, but indicates a life for a life and an eye for an eye regarding the death of the fetus).

But is it possible that doing what we can to end abortion - aside from the preaching of the Gospel - is the most important of our duties as Christians???

How Abhorrent Is Abortion to God?

I'm going to "read into scripture" a little, here, but not very much, considering the above scripture indicating that God values the unborn child as highly as a born child. For purposes of this blog post (and all blog posts) I assume that child & children refer equally to born and unborn humans.

There are several places in the Bible where God seems really, really angry.

I'm thinking of the worship of the golden calf idol while Moses received the Ten Commandments, for one, and of course the destruction of the cities of Soddom & Gamorrah. Consider, please, that God's anger with regard to Soddom & Gamorrah was brought on by a host of incredible sins and evil behaviors, many of which centered upon sexual sins and related deviance.

And it's worth noting that abortion is a form of sexual sin, and is often related to previous sexual sins. But back to the point...

I point you to another chapter of scripture where God was really, really mad. Jeremiah 19 (pictured right - if it's not showing up, or you can't read it, check BibleGateway.com. I'm using the New American Standard Bible because, while it's not my preferred translation, it's a very simple and plain language translation, which avoids some distracting quirks.

God has sent Jeremiah to warn the Baal-worshippers of his anger and coming wrath, brought on by their behavior. Keep in mind, many of God's chosen people were drawn off into worship of Baal just as many Christians today are drawn off in worship of worldly things and beliefs.

God is about to make a spectacle of this place and these people "at which the ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle." He's pretty angry! Much of God's anger is brought on, of course, by these peoples' worship of the idols and tophets of Baal. That's a big no-no, and always has been. But what does God use to illustrate in scripture why he is so outrageously angry about their behavior?

In Jeremiah 19:4-5 God lists 3 things that have caused his outrage, and the 3rd is merely an extrapolation of the 2nd.

They have forsaken me (God).
They have burned sacrifices in this alien place to other gods.
They have filled this place with the blood of the innocent.

Specifically, who are "the innocent?" They are their own children! They "have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal."

It's hard for us to believe someone would do that. But historically we know that Baal worshippers, including the Carthaginians of Roman times, did this. And God was beside Himself about it (that's imagery, not a pun on the Trinity).

But it reminds us of abortion, doesn't it? The sacrifice of ones' own children. And is it even, today, a perverted sacrament to the worship of the world and worldly things and ways?

God was so angry about this that He illustrates how angry He is. You can sense His astonishment when He says, "I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind." He's saying He could never imagine men could be so evil as to burn their own children on an altar.

How Angry Is God About Abortion?

So we know from scripture God wants us to make the world a better place, not just through our behavior, but through our actions. This is what caused Christians to undertake freedom for the slaves.

How important is it to God that we end abortion? It's not much of a stretch - none at all, I'd submit - to see God as furiously angry over abortion in particular.

Not only is abortion a sexual sin and often a representation of other sexual sins. It is an assault upon the very Image of God, because we are all formed in His image, and to destroy a human is to destroy the Image of God.

And God also makes it clear in scripture that He cares much - seemingly more - about crimes against children. Jeremiah 19 makes that clear. Besides talk of fastening a millstone to ones' neck and drowning in the sea, theologian Wayne Grudem even suggests that Exodus 21 (noted above) sets a higher penalty for killing an unborn child than is set in Mosaic Law for killing a grown human.

In any case, please consider this as a response to any Christian who dares to suggest the crusade against abortion is a misplaced or distracting pursuit.

What To Do About Abortion

Much in this world offends God and makes Him angry, for certain. But abortion is almost certainly one of the most offensive - perhaps the most offensive - sins against God and His people.

And, just as with slavery, this is a moral and ethical argument that can be made with or without reference to religion or belief in God. Abortion is just wrong, if one bothers to think about it. It's one of the most abhorrent things we see in our society. Almost every moral and ethical standard accepted by atheists, agnostics, Christians and most other religions alike says it's wrong to kill an innocent human being.

I believe it is our imperative calling to pursue the banning or total abolition of abortion in our society, just as slavery is banned. All we have to do, as pro-lifers and abolitionists, is to point to the clear indications from science, logic and reason which show an unborn child is an innocent human being at any stage of development.

Thank you,

Ed Hanks (author of How To Train Your Politician)

If you understand this argument, and agree with it, I implore you to please donate to either or both of the leading anti-abortion and abolitionist organizations in the US - two groups that really "get it" in terms of how to end abortion. Supporting them is one concrete way we can achieve an end to all this evil.

Colorado Right to Life

American Right to Life

(note: Colorado Right to Life and American Right to Life have reclaimed the high-ground mantle from National Right to Life, which in recent decades has ceased to even recognize or fight for an actual "right to life" and has instead sought a middle ground truce with proponents of abortion to "limit" abortion instead of ending it. Both CRTL and ARTL are committed to the abolition of abortion via the Personhood strategy, which you will see explained in other articles on this blog)

The Abortion Tax: A Modest Pro-Life Proposal

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Fri, 01 Apr 2016 22:43:00 +0000

I sometimes wonder at the wisdom of the "regulating abortion to death" strategy (often called the "chip away" strategy because it nips around the edges, instead of attacking the heart of the issue). Most pro-life groups still support these measures. But is it a wise choice to support them, and to commit so much time, effort and money to them?

Will their strategy not regularize and normalize abortion by creating a well-regulated industry?

Will parental consent laws (while "saving some babies") not simply bring millions of grandparents into culpability for the murder of their grandchildren?

Will 20-week bans, or "heartbeat bills", while "saving some babies" who look and function more like cute baby boys and girls, not ultimately teach society (and, frankly, pro-lifers) that any fetus without a heartbeat, brain function, or some other commonly suggested measure of humanity are therefore less human? Less deserving of rights? Less valuable?

Will a law requiring a 24-hour wait so a mother can get an ultrasound, receive information about the humanity of her child, and cause her to reflect upon all this... While "saving some babies", will it not also convince the vast majority of mothers that inside their womb is a living, developing human child with their own unique DNA, with feelings (including the ability to feel pain), with a heartbeat, with fingernails and fingerprints... And yet it's your RIGHT as a woman to kill that unique, living human being.

But a recent epiphany has caused a change of heart. (I mean this, of course, in the manner of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (1729) - one of history's first overtly pro-life publications).

I hereby submit a modest tax proposal.

A Modest Pro-Life Proposal

If the goal is to "save some babies" through whatever means, as it certainly seems to be, then why not tax abortions??!!

If abortion is made more expensive, obviously it will become more difficult to obtain one, and therefore become less common!

A modest tax would have the real effect of reducing the number of abortions. We will have successfully "saved some babies!!!"

For that matter, why be modest? An even higher tax would surely have a greater impact, and would save even more babies!

Only the rich would be able to afford them! Abortion might even become a symbol of status... But I'm wandering from my point, aren't I?

There's plenty of precedent for this kind of tax. It's called a "sin tax." You pick a social behavior you don't like and you impose a tax upon it.

A sin tax has the added side benefit of generating tax revenue. The higher the tax, the more the revenue!

In fact, in many cases that's become the point of the tax. Here in Colorado, for instance, there's a tax on smoking which is used to fund state parks and public schools. God knows what the parks and schools would do if people actually stopped smoking, but...

You may also be aware of Colorado's marijuana industry (fully legal now) and the taxes which have been levied upon that. Many people are lauding Colorado's legalization of marijuana as a smart move, because of all the tax revenue and "economic vitality" it's brought...

I'm wandering from my point again, aren't I?

I guess there's a danger that our state will become too dependent upon revenue from the abortion tax. There's got to be a way around that.

Maybe we could use the money for "abortion awareness" - show people how awful abortion is, using TV advertisements funded by the abortion tax!!

For that matter, if we really started pulling in revenue, we could have a full-fledged offensive against abortion in the media! It could start funding the whole pro-life movement!

At least, until the number of abortions really started to go down. Then maybe we could increase the tax. But that would just reduce the number of abortions again. Hmm... How can we keep this going?

Maybe, so that we don't completely lose out on all this funding, we could stick with just the modest abortion tax. That way we split the difference in a way that'll be more productive. A moderate number of anti-abortion ads, and a moderate number of "saved babies" could balance out so that we have a sustainable equilibrium.

We could keep this going decades into the future!

I guess this seems at cross-purposes with the idea of ending abortion. But the good thing is we'll be educating the public long-term about how awful abortion is.

Forget Personhood! Forget abolishing abortion!

Even if abortion never ends, at least we will have saved some babies, and at least we'll still have our funding, and a modest anti-abortion awareness campaign. In the end, maybe the government will even subsidize it.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

Regulation Affirms Abortion By Implication

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 17:23:00 +0000

There are two parts - maybe two sections or clauses - to the Personhood anti-abortion strategy.

The first is simple, easily grasped, and is understood and supported by the vast majority of pro-life activists. I daresay it's grasped and will be supported by a majority of the general population, easily enough, if we're able to carry the message to them.

That part is a direct assertion that:

an unborn human child at any gestation is by definition an innocent human being

that killing that innocent human being must therefore be murder, especially in the absence of any "due process of law"

and that abortion must, by definition, be premeditated murder, and therefore must be illegal (or should be made so)

The second is a corrollary, and is therefore somewhat indirect, and is because of that somewhat more difficult to explain without a discussion. There are no soundbites to this corrollary.

And that corrollary is:

if abortion is murder - an abhorrent crime - then it cannot and must not be regulated, because you cannot regulate something that isn't legal.

Regulations Send the Wrong Message to the People and the Courts

In fact, we in the Personhood movement, have often argued, it is counterproductive for pro-life legislators to insert "anti-abortion regulations" into the law in an attempt to "regulate abortion to death." This is a difficult task, since these legislators are, almost without exception, well-meaning men and women who are trying to achieve a positive partial result in the absence of an immediate fully positive solution.

We are fighting 30 years of a driven habit, urged on by most other pro-life groups which have encouraged legislators to submit, push and pass dozens of anti-abortion regulations, thinking that it would at least mitigate the evil until that day when we can finally end abortion forever.

For my part, I've often argued that these anti-abortion regulations may become the reason why we'll never be able to abolish abortion forever, because:

they normalize and regularize abortion in the public mind,

they convince the public that abortion can become a well-regulated (and therefore more acceptable) industry,

they bring government and the public into partnership with the abortion industry,

they imply that abortion must be legal, because you cannot regulate something that is not legal.

In an attempt to make that point, I've sometimes mentioned that municipalities do not have a law that says "you may drive a car up to X speed." Instead they have a law that says "you may not exceed X speed." The fact that you can drive under that speed is implied by the regulations.

But I've recently realized the most obvious example of my assertion is an obvious point of law, illustrated by a well-known court case.

The Dred Scott Decision

The US Constitution never said slavery should be legally allowed.

The US Constitution mentions slavery, obliquely, in only two places:

It says unfree persons should be counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation and taxes (i.e. the "Three Fifths Compromise").

It says Congress may regulate the slave trade, but may not prohibit it before 1808.

Let me reiterate that: The US Constitution at no time says slavery is legal!

Nevertheless, in 1857, the US Supreme Court examined the relevant laws, the Constitution and the institution of slavery in the infamous Dred Scott case.

They concluded, on the basis of two mere references to slavery in the Constitution, that the institution of slavery was a Constitutionally-protected right!

As I have often said, we believe merely mentioning abortion in law, except to explicitly and completely prohibity it, will backfire and give reason to courts and judges to rule that abortion must be legal by the very fact that the law sets limits upon it and regulations as to how it must be performed.

Dr. Charles Rice, late Professor Emeritus at the Notre Dame Law School, has argued this more ably and effectively, in a series of articles over the course of his life (he passed away in 2015). He believed such "anti-abortion regulations" would create a foundation in law for the legality of abortion.

And here, in the Dred Scott decision, we have proof that courts will take the flimsiest of implications to rule in favor of what they believe should be the law.

But, in reality, it's not that flimsy of an argument. It's completely logical, as we've said, that you cannot regulate something that is not legal, and therefore something that is regulated must be legal.

Please Do Not Regulate the Evil of Abortion

We, in the pro-life movement, must be careful not to overstep that line. We should not be inserting "anti-abortion regulations" into the law for a great many reasons. They, in fact, will perpetuate the existence of abortion, just as anti-slavery regulations in the 1800s perpetuated slavery.

We, in the Personhood movement, ask all pro-lifers to recognize the futility of anti-abortion regulations and support Personhood. Support ONLY Personhood.

Thank you!

Ed Hanks

Note: I'm using the term "anti-abortion regulations" too broadly, merely for effect. We in the Personhood movement believe there are such things as "principled regulations" that cause a positive, pro-life effect upon the law, but do not at the same time impugn the humanity of the unborn child. These laws do not mention abortion and are fully compatible with the interpretation of an unborn child as a human being. An example of a principled fetal homicide measure (here) has been submitted several times in Colorado, and once got far enough in the process to receive the vote of every Republican legislator in the Colorado House. Planned Parenthood regularly opposes this language, and browbeats every Democrat into voting against it, because they believe the unborn child must be considered as worthless under the law through 9 months of pregnancy, up until (and sometimes after) birth.

GOP Senate Victory 2014: Good & Bad News for the Unborn

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 08:59:00 +0000

Many conservatives, Tea Party folks and Christians have mixed feelings about the GOP takeover of the US Senate yesterday.

Not that it happened - it's progress in a certain way, and it's great that it's a repudiation of the Obama agenda. But how it happened - the candidates we won with and how they got there - has been a matter of concern.

I recently published a book about how conservatives can get our party back. The party of Ronald Reagan, a sincere and well-meaning conservative who I think did his best to govern according to his philosophy.

He was also the modern president who most tried to inform his governing with his faith and with moral ethics. He was the most pro-life president, supporting a Human Life Amendment, very similar to what we now know as Personhood.

In my book, How To Train Your Politician, I describe the tension and friction between two groups. The conservative wing of the GOP, somewhat equivalent to what we call the Tea Party, and the Establishment wing, better known for its moderate policies and concentration on helping their buddies in big business.

Most of the key victories in the Senate last night were Establishment candidates to a greater or lesser degree. Even Joni Ernst. Even Cory Gardner. Most had defeated more conservative candidates in the primary.

In my book I explain the concept of "Intentional Voting" - I like to call it also "Don't Vote for Squishy." Basically I explain how it hurts the conservative cause when we vote for the lesser of two evils rather than voting our values.

But I also describe the concept of "Gateway Issues." It's all well and fine to try to nominate the candidate closest to your views and philosophy in the primary (ideally someone electable too, though you shouldn't compromise deeply set values in favor of electability). But we're not always going to get our first choice.

Morality does not require us to find a perfect candidate. Simply one who is not fundamentally flawed in his or her agenda. That's where you must choose your gateway issues - a litmus test. What must (or must not) a candidate believe for you to vote for them in good conscience? If a candidate doesn't meet that minimum requirement, they're just not good enough to vote for.

For me, my top gateway issue is life. The candidate must be unwilling to endorse the murder of any unborn children for any reason (abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life - I explain that in my book).

These winning Senate candidates aren't perfect candidates. They're certainly not as conservative as I'd like. But there's good news on the life issue for many of them.

In the discussion below I use four categories to describe their relationship to the concept of human Personhood. Essentially it's a belief that every innocent human being has a natural right to life and freedom that it's the government's responsibility to protect. This protects humans of any age, born or unborn, from slavery, murder or abortion. It's what Reagan was talking about.

To fully understand Personhood, which was the relevant and ultimately successful strategy behind the abolition of slavery, you must understand that laws either treat human beings as people or as property. Slavery treated human beings as property. Roe v Wade treats unborn children as the mother's property. Sadly, most well-intentioned efforts to regulate both slavery and abortion have reinforced the concept of people as property.

The categories are "S" for Solid, "O" for Open to Personhood, "P" for Possibly Persuadable, and "R" for Rejects the concept of human Personhood.

Also keep in mind these evaluations are at odds with what you might hear from National Right to Life or LifeNews.com. They bandy the term "pro-life" about lightly, handing it out to gobs of candidates, including those like Sen. John McCain who was pro-choice all his life until he needed pro-lifers' votes in 2008, and who still didn't hold a legitimately pro-life view then.

"S" - Solid candidates understand the Personhood concept fully and have the courage to vote accordingly. None of the winning candidates or current Senators are in this category - they're all willing to compromise (often in all sincerity) by treating the unborn as property. The only member of Congress I'm aware of who fits in this category is Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) who ran for US Senate this year but lost in the primary to David Perdue.

"O" - Open candidates have expressed some level of commitment to Personhood, whether a verbal endorsement, a vote in favor, or a tacit recognition that abortion is always wrong, even if they haven't used the term Personhood to describe their own view (Personhood is a familiar term in Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, the Dakotas and a few other places - less familiar in others).

There's good news here!

Keep in mind some of these candidates overcame more conservative candidates in the primary and have been seen as more Establishment candidates. In some cases maybe their opponents deserved the seat more and would have been better representatives. But let's look at what we got and understand what we got isn't as bad as we might think.

Note: Each of these "O" candidates are said to "oppose all abortions," meaning without exception. Technically most or all of these candidates do express an exception "to save the life of the mother," but as I explain in my book that's an unnecessary exception since abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother (it's safest to treat mother and child both as patients and deliver the child in an attempt to save the lives of both). I mention this technicality here and not in each specific case below.

Sen-Elect Joni Ernst (R-IA): In a primary against more conservative candidates she courted the Tea Party and tried to change her image. Is her change sincere or not? We won't know until she starts voting. But she took the step of expressly endorsing a Personhood amendment, which is a significant step. She opposes all abortions.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC): The first Black Senator to be elected in the South since Reconstruction (having already served a partial term) is one of 21 cosponsors of the Life At Conception Act, which isn't perfect but is essentially an attempt at federal Personhood legislation. He opposes all abortions.

Sen-Elect Tom Cotton (R-AR): As a Representative he cosponsored the House version of the Life At Conception Act (federal Personhood). He opposes all abortions.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): He has a long record as an Establishment candidate, and he defeated a more conservative candidate in the primary. But his pro-life record has stood strong. He opposes all abortions. He's also a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Bill Cassidy (R-LA): He hasn't been elected yet but he came away with one of two spots in the December runoff and it's relatively likely he'll beat Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) by picking up some of the votes that went to more conservative Rob Maness (R-LA) in the Nov. 4 primary (it's a Louisiana thing). Few pro-lifers would doubt Maness would have been more solid but according to the Louisiana Family Forum Cassidy opposes all abortions.

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS): He won a bitter primary against a more conservative opponent who supported Personhood. I cannot find anything specific to say Cochran also supports Personhood - he may, and probably has, and I just can't find it - but it appears that Cochran does oppose all abortions. He's also a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): He is also a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act. He opposes all abortions.

Sen-Elect Mike Rounds (R-SD): Rounds also defeated other candidates who were probably more solid on life issues. Nevertheless, it appears to me there are few politicians who have more to brag about in the life arena. As South Dakota's Governor, in 2006, Rounds signed into law a total ban on surgical abortions (which was then repealed by popular vote later that year). Critics will note that he vetoed a previous attempt to ban abortion, but I'm willing to give some grace as candidates gradually embrace total and unconditional respect for the unborn.

Sen-Elect James Lankford (R-OK): Lankford won a special election to take the seat previously held by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). He left a Baptist student ministry in 2010 to run for Congress. He opposes all abortions, and even produced an anti-abortion video that's too good not to share.

Sen-Elect Ben Sasse (R-NE): Sasse opposes all abortions. He has a good YouTube video too.

Sen-Elect Steve Daines (R-MT): Daines opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act in the House.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK): Inhofe has a long history of supporting the Life At Conception Act and previous versions of bills meant to accomplish the same things (some of these earlier versions were true federal Personhood without complicating language). He opposes all abortions.

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY): Enzi opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Sen. James Risch (R-ID): Risch opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): Sessions opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

That's 15 Senators elected or re-elected yesterday who oppose all abortions. I can't promise all of them will embrace Personhood, but there's a good chance of it, given the reaction I've seen to Personhood from other sincere pro-life politicians.

Of these 15, five of them replaced pro-abortion Democrats (Pryor, Harkin, Walsh, Johnson, and I'm presuming Landrieu), so we're at least 5 up from the last Senate.

In total, I have identified approximately 33 Senators who will be in office in January who are likely supporters of Personhood.

"P" candidates are Possibly Persuadable. These are candidates who have made outward expressions at being "pro-life" but they don't qualify under the Personhood litmus test. Many have stated they oppose abortion except in cases of rape or incest (which means they would impose the death penalty upon an innocent unborn child for the crime of the rapist). But my experience says if these candidates are pressured to change their position, or if they're approached in the right way to show them a different way to look at rape/incest exceptions, maybe half of them will change their mind. Which half? That remains to be seen. In the 2012 Presidential Primary, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), for example, had always held rape/incest exceptions (as have most Republicans who were in office in previous decades). But when he was confronted with a good argument that compassion for the raped woman shouldn't mean death for her child, he changed his position and endorsed Personhood. Others will too.

Obviously, I'm not as excited about this set of GOP victors as I was about those listed above. They represent challenges, and potential obstacles to legislation that would treat unborn children as Persons under the law. But the news isn't all bad.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The current Minority Leader won a hard-fought primary against a more conservative challenger who would have made alot of us more happy than having to deal with "rubber spine" McConnell. He supports rape/incest exceptions, but he does otherwise have a pro-life record. He's supported many anti-abortion regulations which treat the unborn as property, but have been recommended by many pro-life groups as "the right thing to do" to save lives (this belief is refuted in my book). McConnell is particularly keen on a Pain Capable Act which would ban abortions after 20 weeks, and which is discussed at the end of this article.

Sen-Elect Cory Gardner (R-CO): Cory Gardner was a rising star in the Personhood movement, and seemed like he had potential to bring a Personhood mindset to Washington. He even took the extraordinary step of attending a legislative briefing on Personhood while running for Congress (where it was explained that Personhood cannot affect "contraceptives" or any form of birth control that doesn't kill an already conceived child). Unfortunately, when he was hand-picked by McConnell and Karl Rove to be Colorado's candidate for the US Senate he renounced Personhood and said he had come to believe it was an "extreme" measure that would "ban contraceptives." He spent millions of dollars on television to advertise to Colorado voters (700,000 of whom supported Personhood this November - probably 3/4 of those who voted for him) that Personhood was extreme, but he wasn't like those extremists. It's not 100% clear, but it appeared that he told the Denver Post that he supported abortions for rape and incest. Would he come back into the fold? Who knows - he's gone back on his word before.

Sen-Elect Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Sullivan is another "pro-life with exceptions" candidate (we call them "pro-abortion with exceptions"). He supports abortions for rape or incest.

Sen-Elect David Perdue (R-GA): Perdue beat out other more pro-life candidates in the primary, at least some of whom were Personhood supporters. He is "pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest." He does support the aforementioned Pain Capable legislation which isn't as good as it sounds.

Sen-Elect Thom Tillis (R-NC): Tillis is "pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest." (Note: One Personhood article seemed to indicate Tillis supports Personhood. I cannot find any evidence for this. One article says he believes states have the right to ban forms of birth control, but the article indicated neither that he supported such a position nor that he had renounced his support for some abortions).

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN): Alexander has long been part of the anti-abortion regulatory culture in Washington, but he's long held to rape/incest exceptions.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): I couldn't establish for sure that he holds to rape/incest exceptions but I'm reasonably sure. If you have better information, please let me know in a comment. He supports the Pain Capable legislation.

It now appears that Ed Gillespie (R-VA) did not win his bid to unseat Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA). A recount will occur. Gillespie supports rape/incest exceptions.

The good news - besides that these new senators might become pro-life in time - is that three pro-abortion Democrats are no longer there (Sens. Mark Begich, Mark Udall, Kay Hagan).

"R" candidates Reject the humanity of the unborn. They do see the unborn as property and are officially pro-abortion (they say "pro-choice"), or some might claim to be pro-life but have nothing to show for it. The only good thing to say about this is there are few pro-abortion Republicans these days, compared to days past when it was relatively normal. Up to 2/3 of Republicans in many chambers across the country were pro-abortion - 1/3 in many places you'd think would be pro-life. The mood is changing, nationwide and in Washington.

Sen-Elect Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV): Capito has long been associated with and endorsed by Republicans for Choice, a pro-abortion PAC. She is pro-abortion.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): Collins has long been the Republican senator voted most wanted to go away. She's been worse than Sen. Arlen Specter (R/D-PA), before or after his defection to the Democrats. She is pro-abortion.

The Republican Establishment "rah-rah" crowd was keen to get Fmr. Sen. Scott Brown elected in New Hampshire. Some pro-life groups have bent into pretzels trying to portray him as pro-life, but it doesn't really make any sense. He's pretty much pro-abortion down the line, with a few outlying votes. We're better off without him.

There's also Dr. Monica Wehby (R-OR) - she never had a realistic chance to win, but she was outspokenly pro-abortion and she was a bad example for the GOP. It's fortunate she didn't do better than she did. She would have had FoxNews Republicans cheering for her, like they did for Brown, and it would have undermined the movement.

So there you have it. Even when you take into account the number of Establishment Republicans who defeated Tea Party (usually more pro-life) Republicans in the primaries, it appears that things are improving in Washington from a Personhood perspective. Is Personhood likely to come to a vote any time soon? No. There's alot of groundwork in the states and among the public to be done first. But we're making progress - don't doubt that!

On that note, consider that Amendment 67 in Colorado was the 3rd Personhood Amendment considered by Colorado voters. They mock us because we keep running this amendment, and it keeps getting defeated. But we're accomplishing what we want. It offers an opportunity to broadcast to the public through every media channel that unborn children are human beings deserving of rights. They wouldn't otherwise hear that - we are a cash-poor movement, and the free media is a Godsend.

Polls show only 12% of Americans in 2008 supported a total ban on abortion, but in that year Colorado's Personhood Amendment got 27% of the vote. Now, in 2014, polls show 17% of Americans support a total ban on abortion - a number which has benefited by many Personhood efforts around the country, as well as the public debate over Hobby Lobby's refusal to provide abortifacients in its healthcare plans - and in 2014 36% of Colorado voters supported a Personhood Amendment! We're making progress.

Before I sound like I'm being all rosy about the prospects of a pro-life future in a Republican controlled Senate, I offer this heartclenching prediction.

If Sen. Mitch McConnell remains head of the Republicans in the Senate, he has said that he will push for and pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Since no member of the Senate is listed as "Solid" above, none of these people fully understand why Personhood is the only strategy that will actually help unborn children, and why regulations reinforce the impression of the unborn as property. Therefore, any other Senate leader would probably do the same, and probably no senator is going to object.

This legislation is more "big talk, little effect" like the 2007 Partial Birth Abortion Ban which didn't ban a single abortion (and even allowed partial birth abortions to continue to this day, modified very slightly from how they were done in the past). The main reason it exists is to give pro-life voters something to salivate about while at the same time representing little risk to candidates and they can use it to call themselves "pro-life" even if the rest of their record is questionable.

And Pain Capable legislation sets up a false value differential, making it look like the older an unborn child is - or the more one looks like a baby - the more human they are. Educated pro-lifers realize this is a false (nay, dangerous!) contrast. It perpetuates the Roe v Wade style argument that age or viability or the acquisition of certain abilities is what determines whether someone is deserving of rights. Personhood recognizes that every innocent human being is deserving of rights by virtue of their being human.

Lastly, I simply want to say that this blog post is the result of 12-15 hours of hard research work, but is nevertheless cursory. It's entirely possible I've been unfair to some of the candidates above, or "too fair" to others. If you have additional information or corrections to offer me, please leave a comment.

Thank you! Please pray for the continued spreading of the Personhood concept, and that the US Senate will someday embrace the humanity and protect the rights of every unborn child.

Don't Vote For Squishy! How To Train Your Politician

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Fri, 03 Oct 2014 19:39:00 +0000

A new book is coming to rally and inspire the Tea Party and the conservative/liberty movement!

How To Train Your Politician:

Intentional Voting as a Path to Tea Party and Constitutional Victory

The Establishment thinks all they have to do is slap a Ronald Reagan mask on their socialist candidate and we’ll vote for them. What’s worse – we do!!! This kind of voting behavior is what got us Speaker Boehner.

Think about that a second. That's how we got Speaker Boehner. We're doing this to ourselves, by voting in the interests of the Establishment, not in our own interests.

Turning things around is going to require a paradigm shift. How can we get back on top of this again, and stop getting nominees like Mitt Romney and John McCain. How do we achieve victory for solid conservatives instead, who will lead our country out of this statist mess?

I lay that out in How to Train Your Politician.

Topics include:

How the GOP Establishment trained conservatives to vote for progressive socialists
How “lesser of two evils” voting and compromised leadership undermine conservatism
Special discussions about the Tea Party and Christian conservatives
How Third Parties Influence Politics
Why Establishment candidates lose, and how elections are really won
How we can train political parties to respond to our agenda instead
A preview of a second upcoming book on Personhood and the Right to Life

Some of the actions and solutions I propose may seem radical or extreme -- definitely different from what the Party's talking heads teach us! -- but I assure you I back up each of these with background, evidence and examples, and I'm quite confident in my assertions. Even if you think you don’t agree with my conclusions or suggestions, I hope you will give my book a fair hearing and are intellectually honest enough to consider whether I might be right.

About me: I have served a state governor as speechwriter and a Republican legislative caucus as press secretary. I’ve been watching politics since I was a kid, and have been involved almost as long. Today I fit most closely with liberty activists, Constitutionalists and the Tea Party.

HTTYP is due to be released for Kindle purchase and download Oct. 8, 2014. A print copy of the book should be available within days of the Kindle edition, if not at the same time.

I will be using the Twitter hashtags #dontvoteforsquishy and #httyp to promote the book. I'd love it if you'd join the conversation!

I would also very much appreciate if you would like to review or post about my book on your blog or on social media.

Media inquiries, including blogger requests for information, please contact me at coloconservative@gmail.com.

If you would like to set up an interview or radio/TV show appearance, I am available most times during the week EXCEPT for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday between 6 am and 6 pm Mountain Time. I can be, however, available between about 12:15 and 12:40 pm on Monday through Wednesday.

I will send out periodic updates on How to Train Your Politician and other political books and projects. If you would like to sign up, please fill out the form below. Providing your name is helpful, so I know if I know you on Facebook, etc.

Please also like my Author Page on Facebook and Follow me on Twitter.

How Am I A Creationist?

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Fri, 16 May 2014 19:56:00 +0000

People sometimes ask me, "How can you be a Creationist?" like it's a childhood belief people are born with, but they're supposed to grow out of it. Like believing in the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus.

I tell them my story is actually quite different, and it starts back when I was an atheist...

See, I believed in a naturalistic origin for the whole world, and all the universe - a paradigm entirely without God or gods. And I wanted to know how to be able to really defend my beliefs, and take those Christians to task in scientific and logical terms. So I began studying "the texts" - I began studying evolution in detail.

But when I started looking deeply into evolutionary theory, I realized that it makes sense on the surface. It's a very finely crafted argument, up to a point. But then things start to break down, and there are some very fundamental questions that are sidestepped or entirely avoided. Like major holes in the theory that really should have answers, if it's that astute a belief system.

Naturally, I sought answers. If I wasn't finding them in the books, I figured I'd ask people who should know - professors and scientists. But when you start asking questions about the dogma of evolution - when you start expressing doubts about their deeply held beliefs - they spout pat answers. They don't really answer the questions - they avoid answering directly. Then they start getting nervous, and looking at you askance.

And then their eyes flash, like they know you, and
they point their knobby fingers at you, and they shout, "Heretic! Heretic!!!"

And then they send the mob with torches after you....

Remembering Terri Schindler-Schiavo

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:31:00 +0000

I've occasionally resurrected old articles and columns I have written in the past. This week is the 9th anniversary of the intentional starving of Terri Schiavo, who was said by the media to have been "in a vegetative state", and said by her husband to "have wanted to die." The media ignored signs that her injury may have been the result of a failed murder attempt by her husband, and also ignored medical signs that Terri was, in fact, able to respond to the world around her. This column was printed in The Front Range Rampart in 2005.

People enjoy movies about the best of human nature, and the human spirit. And, invariably, the movies we find most compelling are stories about survival in the face of great odds.

When have we ever seen movies where responders to the scene of a bad accident exhort the victims, “Just give up! You’re not going to want to live like this.”? No! They say, “Come on! Hang in there! You can make it!”

We are uplifted by movies about the piano player or football star who’s lost his limbs, yet finds the will to live a productive life. Life’s not all about “quality of life.”

Ask Joni Earickson Tada, a quadriplegic who ably guides a paintbrush with her teeth and gives inspirational speeches to audiences around the world. She said, “I didn’t think I wanted to live like that, either.” But now she does. Injuries can change your whole life, but the human will to live can overcome despair. She redefined her “quality of life” and found her own life abundant in quality even in spite of her handicaps.

So how did our society so lightly begin making decisions for Terri Schiavo, whose supposed desire to die became accepted as Gospel by the courts and media on the basis of hearsay her long estranged husband first voiced many years after her debilitating injury?

Some of those movies about the human will to live are scary. Many stories over the years have frightened us with the thought of being hurt but alive – but without any way to let someone else know. In plenty of these stories, the human spirit perseveres and finds rescue. But not in all.

Terri exhibited convincing signs of consciousness and emotion, and could communicate in simple ways. All of this the media ignored. Some of us knew, but the world as a whole – the people Terri was counting on – did not hear her cry.

Terri Schiavo was the poster-child for disabled rights in this country, and we killed her.

How much further from here to a society where we “euthanize” the disabled to put them out of their misery? Or the elderly?

More stories – often sci-fi tales like Star Trek or The Time Machine – warn of the horror of a society that sacrifices the weak for the benefit of the society as a whole. Lebensraum.

America needs to step back from the brink on this dangerous subject. We need to embrace free will and individual rights in these cases, not allow the government to become the arbiter of life and death, coldly judging to favor the “best interests” of the broader community.

Terri, whose life was judged irrelevant and worthless to society by the “wisdom” of American courts, may well turn out to be one of the most important and relevant lives lived during our age. It is our duty to be compelled by her story, and her struggle for life. We must learn from this, and we must act.

The "Never Were Any WMDs" Lie

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:05:00 +0000

I'm continually frustrated that so many -- many Republicans included -- believe the lie that "there never were any weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq".

It's patently -- provably -- not true! And the lie can be easily refuted using entirely liberal news sources (because it was all over CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, etc.). Or Bill Clinton's own words, etc.

So to set the record straight, this is how I (and the liberal news networks) remember the history leading up to the US coalition (there's another lie -- "no coalition" -- there were many countries who joined the invasion) invading Iraq in March of 2003 after a yearlong period of waiting in vain for diplomatic breakthroughs (i.e. no "rush to war" either).

Today many forget that in 1983 the world knew as an absolute fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had actually used WMDs (nerve gas) against Iranian soldiers in their war. They knew because we had video of Iranian soldiers under the effects of nerve gas (I remember watching the video on CBS, and it was disgusting). And the networks followed up enough that they were convinced the story was true.

So there -- just there alone -- we know for a fact that the "never were any WMDs in Iraq" statement is a lie. Or at least an intentional omission by those who know, and an ill-informed mantra learned by many who have been lied to by people with a partisan political agenda.

But there's more...

In 1988 US news networks (liberals) knew as an absolute fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had actually used WMDs (nerve gas) against Kurdish separatists in Halabja, in northern Iraq.

In 1992, shortly after the UN coalition defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War, the world was appalled as the US appealed for an uprising in southern Iraq and then was slow to respond when it happened and the Iraqi army and air force crushed it. The belated "no fly zones" couldn't save the rebels, and it only served to keep Saddam Hussein in power when his own people clearly wanted him gone.

In any case, then in 1992, Americans knew as an absolute fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government had actually used WMDs again (nerve gas) against Shi'ite separatists in southern Iraq.

And so, starting in 1992, the increasingly frustrated UN imposed sanctions upon Iraq requiring them to allow weapons inspectors "unfettered access" to Iraqi WMD sites so they could find and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. However, it's clear from the record (this article from NPR details the whole history) these inspectors never had "unfettered access." In fact, they were continually, routinely, delayed, misdirected and otherwise obstructed, so that they had no way of knowing if they were really finding Iraq's WMD stockpiles. Many of these inspectors were convinced Iraq was hiding something, still.

This pattern of obstruction continued even as late as 2003, just weeks before the US coalition invasion of Iraq. Inspectors would be told there were WMDs hidden in a presidential palace (you remember this from the news, don't you???), the inspectors would lead a convoy there to inspect it, Iraqi soldiers would hold them up for 2 or 3 hours, or a full day, so they couldn't inspect it, and then once they finally arrived they found -- surprise, surprise! -- that there was no evidence of WMDs remaining. That was the repeated history of a decade of UN weapons inspections!

Yes! The inspectors did find and destroy large quantities of WMDs and many WMD-producing facilities (again, what do the liberals say? "Never any WMDs in Iraq"???), but there was always a feeling that there was more being hidden. On more than one occasion, Iraq was found to have been lying and hiding WMD programs which were later discovered by weapons inspectors and destroyed.

Why should they -- and the administration of George W. Bush -- have assumed that they'd found everything when there was so much evidence that Iraq continued to hide and obstruct, and had been shown to have hidden WMDs which were later found?

The history generously supports what President Bush said, in 2002, "We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger." I agree!

In late 2002, shortly before the US led invasion, the UN found Iraq to be in "material breach" of its obligations to obey UN resolutions (i.e. it was still avoiding and flaunting its obligations to submit to inspections, and presumably was still hiding things from inspectors). And Hans Blix, head of the UN inspection regime, was frustrated. NPR says: "Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point."

So there is the crux of my argument -- expressed not by partisan US officials, but by a relatively neutral Hans Blix of the UN: 1) he indicates there were once "vast stores of chemical and biological agents", 2) Iraq was "known to have [them] at one point," and 3) Iraq was responsible for a "failure to account" for these vast stores. He's admitting that the UN inspectors knew Saddam Hussein had vast stores of WMDs at one point, and the UN inspectors had no way to confirm that they did not still exist! Obviously, despite continued operations and the destruction of much of Iraq's stockpiles and infrastructure, the total stockpiles destroyed and the entirety of the infrastructure destroyed could not reliably be estimated to equal Iraq's total capacity at one time. Even Blix, as late as 2002, believed Saddam still had WMDs hidden somewhere.

The most pressing concern, in US foreign policy circles, that a weakening of resolve from Russia, Germany and France (each of which had financial ties to Iraq, and would benefit from a lessening of sanctions) would allow Saddam Hussein to be released from UN sanctions and mandates, so that he could resume his former activities unmolested, and could thereby prove a destabilizing influence in the Middle East, as well as continuing to fund worldwide terrorism.

Admissions and Allowances:

1) It's true. By 2003, Saddam Hussein may not have had a substantial WMD stockpile. He might have destroyed it in secret, though there was no way for US intelligence officials or UN inspectors to know this. Why should they have trusted his word, when in so many other cases he was known to have lied?

2) It's possible, even if Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpile and his biological and nuclear weapons programs had really been dismantled, that he wanted the world to think that he still had such weapons and such capabilities. He may have seen benefit in making its bitter enemy Iran, or even other enemies, believe he still had the ability to use WMDs. In fact, it's p
ossible that Saddam Hussein set himself up for invasion by refusing to deny that he still had WMDs. The obstruction of the inspectors may have been a ruse to make Iraq's enemies think that he still had WMDs when he didn't. Still, President Bush can't be blamed for not taking Saddam at his word, and thinking the worst of him, right?

3) It's possible the CIA and the Bush Administration overstated the case for WMDs still in Iraq. That's what administrations do! The Obama Administration has obviously overstated the case for US citizens' ability to "keep the health plans they like". Why aren't liberals up in arms about that? What's clear from the evidence is that the Bush Administration could rationally and realistically believe Saddam Hussein's Iraq still had WMDs, and might retain some ability to create more. They also believed the inspection regime, and the full array of UN sanctions against Iraq, might soon come to an end, and Iraq might soon be free to reconstitute its WMD programs anew! So no wonder they might have tried to push the envelope a little in order to provide rationale for an invasion that would put an end to Saddam Hussein's destabilizing shenanigans once and for all. I believe the Bush Administration thought it was doing the world a favor by invading Iraq, and the evidence presented here shows you why.

That said, it's also possible, as was reported by reliable intelligence sources, that Iraq smuggled the remainder of its WMD stockpile by truck convoy into Syria in the weeks before the US invasion. It's entirely possible that the WMDs we've been concerned about during the Syrian Civil War in 2013 did in fact originate in Iraq, in 2003.

In any case, here's what the evidence proves:

1) it's provably clear that Iraq did have substantial stockpiles of WMDs at one point,

2) mainstream, typically liberal, news sources reported as absolute fact in 1983, 1988 and 1992 that Iraq actually used nerve gas WMDs against its enemies, internal and external, and

3) UN weapons inspectors had no way to confirm that all of Iraq's WMDs had been destroyed. In fact, the continual obstruction of inspections by Saddam Hussein's Iraq led rational people, including some of the inspectors themselves, to believe that Iraq still hid at least some WMDs as late as 2003, and might even have some hidden infrastructure to resume production.

Interview With a Black Republican 2: Theron Bell (2005)

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:14:00 +0000

This is the 2nd of two interviews I conducted in 2005 with prominent Colorado Black Republicans. Theron doesn't like the term "Black Republican" — he's a "Republican" just like any other — but his record as a Black man in government positions as early as the 1960s is a testament to the vision of both Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party.

Please also read my interview with Arniter Jamison and my analysis of who really made the 1964 Civil Rights Act possible (well-meaning people, Black and White alike, were on different sides of that Act, but the point is the Democrat claim that they were the only champions for civil rights in the '60s is a lie).

Theron Bell: A Black Republican for Reagan in 1966

“Can you go down to Santa Barbara?” asked the voice on the phone. “What for?” asked Theron Bell, sitting next to his friend Herb. “To meet with Ronald Reagan.”

They had gotten an inkling to get involved in local politics. Herb was a Democrat, but Bell convinced him that if they could find a good Republican candidate to back for Governor of California, they would both volunteer.

That’s how these two black men in 1966 ended up spending an hour riding horses and talking with Ronald Reagan at his ranch. And that’s how Bell ended up committing most of the rest of his life to implementing Republican policy from Sacramento and Washington D.C..

Most of Bell’s experience had been in middle and upper management in auto sales, insurance and trucking. His only experience in politics had been campaigning for Alaskan statehood. But that planted a bug in him that would be with him for the rest of his life.

Bell was asked to chair Reagan’s speaker’s bureau. He would call up Reagan’s movie star friends, and ask if they’d speak for him. But if no one could, then the task fell to Bell.

At one such appearance in Sacramento, Bell arrived late and hung out at the back of the room as the other candidates made their pitches to the audience. Bill Bagley, a state legislator who was speaking for one of the other candidates, told the crowd what a racist Ronald Reagan was – that was the angle his opponents were using. Then, to great effect, Bell took the stage on Reagan’s behalf and said, “It’s obvious Mr. Bagley doesn’t know what he’s talking about!” Reagan got the endorsement that night.

Because of Reagan’s positions on welfare, and his support in 1964 for similarly tarred presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, the charge of racism would not go away. But opponent George Christopher once called Reagan a bigot within his hearing. Reagan’s response was, “If you say that about me one more time, I’m going to knock you right on your ass.”

For that matter, Bell says, Goldwater wasn’t a racist either. The Goldwater’s department store was the first in the country to hire a black man as vice president.

Much of the charge of racism for both Goldwater and Reagan stemmed from their opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But Bell said he, himself, had mixed feelings about the Act. “I was the first black business manager in the country,” Bell said of his time as an auto dealer. “It’s still a mixed bag,” he says. “I think [the Act] probably set blacks back about 10 years in their progress, because people were already beginning to make inroads into decent jobs and into the professions on their own merits, without the legislation.”

“Obviously, the legislation helped open doors, to the restaurants and things like that, in certain parts of the country. And broke down some of the racial barriers in the south... I’m not sure that wouldn’t have happened anyway. Especially after World War II and the Korean Conflict, when they integrated the armed services. It was already taking place.” Bell was one of those pioneers who forged a path for the future, on his own, without the Civil Rights Act.

Governor Reagan tapped Bell to head up his California Office of Economic Opportunity. “Reagan ended up appointing more blacks to policy-making positions than all of the previous governors of California combined,” Bell said.

As Director, he helped generate business and jobs. “We had put together in California a program to increase the number of minority owned businesses,” Bell said. It was so successful that Richard Nixon used it as a nationwide model when he became President.

Partly because of that notoriety and experience, Bell was appointed as state director for Nixon’s ACTION agency, where he served through most of the '70s.

Bell was called back into service by President Reagan in 1981. He took over as Director of the Minority Business Development Agency — the federal agency Nixon had created on Bell’s California model.

Ironically, President Carter had slashed funding for minority business development. Its budget had fallen to $20 million. Bell’s connections with Reagan and his team paid off. “We tripled the budget each year for three years,” he said.

Bell helped set up national and local business groups, such as the Denver Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, which still helps local minority firms today. He funded 100 centers to lend support to minority-owned businesses. He helped owners network between themselves to their mutual advantage. He set up an international export program, and launched several trade missions. It was all more ambitious than what previous administrations had tried, and it got to the root of the needs of struggling minority-owned companies.

Bell also got Reagan to proclaim “Minority Enterprise Development Week” to pay tribute to their economic contributions. That recognition, Bell said, “means a lot when it comes to getting new business, especially with major corporations. They do a lot of networking at those events... They tend to increase their revenues, hire more people, and pay more taxes.”

And he’s proud of having ended a form of corporate welfare. There was a program that gave taxpayers’ money to major corporations to encourage them to help minority businesses. “They can fund the program,” Bell said to himself. “They just throw away that much money. So I told them they weren’t going to get renewed.”

Reagan and Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldridge ignored complaints, backed Bell’s decision, and the corporate welfare died away. Bell says the program still supports minority businesses, but today it’s funded entirely with corporate money.

After Reagan left office, Bell worked for President George H.W. Bush, and then for the governor of Virginia. Once, Bell ran unsuccessfully for Mayor of Alexandria, Va., on a Republican platform. Then he and his wife moved to Littleton, Colo., where they remain very involved in local Republican organizations.

Bell believes in Republican philosophy, and he feels those concepts of individual rights, free enterprise and opportunity are beneficial to all Americans — black and white alike. To Bell, few people represent the very best of Republican philosophy as well as Ronald Reagan.

“There is only one man that I admired and respected more than Reagan,” Bell says. “And that was my Dad. The man [Reagan] was sincere, he was a delegator, he had a vision for this country, and what you saw was what you got. I just loved him. In my opinion he was the best president we’ve ever had.”

Bell doesn’t understand why most black people today identify with the Democrat Party, rather than with Republicans. “Many people have forgotten that it was Abraham Lincoln who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. It was Dwight Eisenhower who established the Small Business Administration, and also made certain that discrimination in the military was reduced, and eventually eliminated. It was Nixon who established the Office of Minority Business Enterprise. And it was Ronald Reagan who funded that same program at an increased level and created minority enterprise development, which opened the doors up for a lot of minorities to now become big companies.”

“The Democrats’ approach is a joke," Bell says. They act like if you're Black you have to be a Democrat, like there's no choice. Like they "own" Black people. Successful Blacks are a threat to the stereotype the Democrats promote. "I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve been called an Uncle Tom by some of those so-called honorable black Democrats.”

What do Republicans need to improve? “The Republicans don’t reach out like the Democrats do. It’s almost as if they’re afraid to reach out. The door is open, and Republicans expect blacks and other minority groups to walk in the door just like they did.” He says it doesn't always work like that.

Bell contrasts the parties like this. “The Democrats promise a lot and don’t deliver. The Republicans don’t promise a lot. They do promise the right to earn a good living.”

To Theron Bell’s mind, that’s worth everything.

Transforming Abortion Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:47:00 +0000

by Ed Hanks

Time was, you couldn't get elected as a Republican in Colorado if you didn't have the "three exceptions." Candidates would be coached to say, "I'm opposed to abortion except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother."

Such candidates were actually considered fully pro-life. Or "as pro-life as we can get."

Thank God that time is past.

Pro-life groups were complicit, allowing candidates to get away with calling themselves "pro-life", even if they supported abortion for what turns out to be 8,000 dead, fully innocent, human babies every year. Yes, it's less than 1% of abortions nationwide, but those 8,000 children have the same Right to Life as the rest of us. They should be protected -- there's no reason to exclude these innocent children as less than human, just because the circumstances of their birth involved a rape.

Today's pro-life movement realizes that. It's time candidates realize that too.

How important is it to you that your representatives in Congress and at the State Legislature share your views on life issues? That they be not just "pro-life with exceptions," but fully pro-life, opposed to all abortions?

If you think that's important, I'm going to remind you in just a moment and see if it was really that important.

The world is changing. More than 50% of Americans -- more than 50% of WOMEN! -- tell Gallup Polls they're pro-life. A quarter of Americans think abortion should never be allowed, except to save the life of the mother (which is not really an abortion, so long as the doctor tries to save both mother and child). Even the European Union is entering a petition-gathering phase to try to ban abortion across the European continent. If the EU doesn't approve it, at least it will put Europeans' representatives on record for their constituents to know where they stand.

The same thing is happening in the US. This year, six of the top candidates for the GOP presidential nomination (Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, Perry, Gingrich & Cain) endorsed the Personhood of the unborn child, pledging that they would support abortion for NO reason.

In Colorado, 69% of Republicans at the State Assembly voted for Personhood protections beginning at conception.

Yet, only 25% of Colorado legislators support Personhood -- about 25 of them, only half of the Republicans.

One reason why is there's more money available to support liberal candidates, even in GOP primaries. A pro-Personhood candidate in 2010 lost the primary to the legislature's most pro-abortion Republican because the pro-Obamacare medical lobby came through with thousands of dollars for her! Now, Sen. Ellen Roberts (R-Durango) is the most liberal Republican in the Senate, and she voted with the Democrats to kill this year's Fetal Homicide measure which would have simply recognized unborn victims of crime as victims under the law, and not just a sad side-effect of an attack upon her mother.

Making sure that you and your friends only vote for pro-Personhood candidates is just one part of the solution.

Another key part is making sure pro-Personhood candidates have enough money to compete, not just in the November elections, but even in the June primary election against Republicans who aren't pro-life.

So how important is it to you? Is it important enough to contribute just $50 to pro-Personhood candidates?

If so, please use this donate button and give $50 to the Conservative Renewal Fund (CRF) small donor committee.
Being pro-life is not the only criteria for the candidates to meet -- they're asked to be pro-liberty and fiscally conservative too -- but every candidate who gets money from the Conservative Renewal Fund will be pledged to support Personhood protections for unborn children in law -- from conception until natural death.

I realize the financial stresses placed upon families these days. My family feels them too. But we do find small amounts to give to causes we believe in, including to support Personhood and the candidates who also support Personhood. If you've found it in your heart to "put your money where your mouth is," then bless you!

If you are willing to give more, then I will point you to another committee that does the same thing, but which deals in larger amounts of money. Colorado Conservative Action (CCA) has the same criteria as the Conservative Renewal Fund, and you may donate up to $500 to give to candidates through CCA. The button to donate to CCA is below.

Remember, if YOU don't donate, someone who supports abortion surely will, and the results will be predictale. Pro-life candidates cannot win enough of these seats without financial support from like-minded citizens.

If you can only contribute a smaller amount, or if you'd prefer not to donate online, please send it in by mail:

Ed Hanks
Colorado Conservative Action
1005 Northridge Rd.
Littleton, CO 80126
720-301-4270

Bless you for your beliefs, and bless you for the moral support you provide to efforts to establish Personhood for the unborn. Bless you if you've decided to support these candidates financially.

Please, if you cannot spare money, PLEASE pray for us, please help collect signatures for the 2012 Personhood amendment, and please vote for ONLY those candidates who pledge to support Personhood.

A list of pro-Personhood candidates in Colorado can be found at the Colorado Right to Life Blog.

Together, we will persevere and the children will be protected.

The world is changing! Will you help change it?

Backing Conservatives in Primaries - Why It Matters

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:45:00 +0000

Two things happened at the Colorado Capitol Wednesday (Apr. 11) which illustrate how utterly important it is to support conservative candidates in primaries. Vocal personal support isn't enough - they need your financial support, within your means.

In a minute I'll explain an easy, affordable way to help.

Case 1: Some Republicans Oppose Republican Principles

Wednesday, House Republicans and Democrats debated Colorado's budget. There are 33 Republicans, and 32 Democrats - a 1-vote GOP majority.

Conventional wisdom says when it's that close, you support any Republican, no matter if they oppose conservative principles. Don't rock the boat.

Some Republicans, led by Rep. Chris Holbert and Rep. Marsha Looper, rocked the boat. They made a stand against taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. Any taxpayer funding (direct or indirect) for an organization that provides abortions is illegal under Colorado law - it's in the Constitution. That doesn't stop Democrats from trying anyway. And they did Wednesday.

Holbert, Looper, and a number of other stalwart conservatives rallied the troops and got every Republican to vote NO on funding.

That's a success story. But how did we get there?

Wouldn't it have been easier to block funding back when the GOP had more than a one-vote majority? Seems like a point in favor of the "big tent" and "don't rock the boat" camps, but it's not.

The backstory is that just a few years ago, even when Republicans held a substantial majority in the Statehouse, a few Republican legislators - as many as one-third - would have voted with the Democrats to support Planned Parenthood.

Primaries matter. Supporting conservative candidates matters.

If conservative candidates hadn't stepped up and challenged the liberal, RINO Republicans (Republicans in Name Only), and if conservative citizens hadn't stepped up and donated to the conservative cause, a majority of the House would still support Planned Parenthood and all the killing they do. Excusing all the state laws they violate. Accepting all the young women they place in jeopardy.

YOUR tax money supporting the deaths of thousands of unborn children in Colorado!

Supporting conservative candidates matters!

In 2010, my political committee, Colorado Conservative Action, helped Rep. Chris Holbert win a 3-way primary election. He's now a rising star in the conservative movement, and is leading the fight on many conservative issues.

Case 2: Some Republicans Are Liberal Extremists

In 2003, Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife Laci and dumped her body, and the body of his unborn son Connor, into San Francisco Bay. California charged him with two murders.

In the years since then, public outcry caused 38 states to enact laws allowing the killing of an unborn child during the commission of a crime to be charged as a separate murder. Colorado, almost a decade later, remains one of a handful without such a law.

Why? Because so many Republican legislators did whatever Planned Parenthood wanted. Pro-abortion forces had a functional majority in a legislature controlled by Republicans! And Planned Parenthood didn't want any laws on the books that might suggest an unborn child has value to anyone - even his or her own pregnant mother.

Polls show anywhere from 70-90% of citizens believe the killing of pregnant moms' "wanted" children should be prosecuted as murder. A majority of Democrats hold such a position. Even a majority of pro-choicers. Opposing these laws is extreme!

But Wednesday, Republican Senator Ellen Roberts voted with the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to kill even this most basic protection for unborn children - a measure supported by the vast majority of Coloradans. Roberts has been in the pocket of Planned Parenthood since she won her first election.

Supporting conservatives is important. Supporting them financially is especially important.

In 2010, Colorado Conservative Action (my political committee) gave money to conservative Republican Dean Boehler during the primary in an attempt to prevent Ellen Roberts from being elected to the Senate. She won the primary anyway, but it wasn't easy.

Colorado Conservative Action tried to stop Ellen Roberts, and her extremist agenda. Maybe with more donations we could have done it.

She's the most pro-abortion Republican in the Senate. She's also the second worst tax-and-spend Republican in the Senate, according to the Colorado Union of Taxpayers.

Beware all the liberals dressed as conservatives this election season. There are many Republican candidates who don't match their rhetoric.

CCA only supports candidates who are pledged to be 1) pro-life, 2) pro-gun, 3) fiscally conservative, and 4) pro-liberty (and all the things that entails - 10th Amendment, property rights, etc.). You can feel confident that if you donate to Colorado Conservative Action these candidates will be vetted on these important principles, and the money will be wisely allocated only to candidates who really mean what they say.

This committee can only donate to candidates at the state level (i.e. not candidates for federal, county or city offices). By law, I cannot promise to support a particular candidate.

Its goal is to replace liberal Republicans and Democrats with principled conservatives in the State House and Senate by financially supporting them in primaries, and then also in the November election.

Will YOU Donate to Help Conservative Candidates?

Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you want to make sure I'm the real thing. I've worked on campaigns since 1984 and served as a political communicator at the State Capitol as press secretary and speechwriter. I know how to evaluate candidates and how to spot evasions when trying to pin them down.

Colorado Conservative Action can receive checks, or Paypal donations, from US citizens of up to $550 per election cycle. Less than that is fine.

If anything more than $50 is outside your budget, then you could donate to my small donor committee, the Conservative Renewal Fund (I sometimes call it the "Conservative Renewal Authority" for fun).

Anything you can contribute will help the cause. Contributing to Colorado Conservative Action magnifies your money, allowing you to donate more than just direct contributions. It also amplifies your political voice, because candidates who receive donations from CCA know they're getting it because they are steadfast in defending conservative principles and they'll be held accountable.

Thanks to your generosity, conservative candidates will get a check with a "note" attached - one that says, "Thanks for standing up for conservative values!"

Every individual citizen can donate up to $550. Other members of your household may also donate $550. I'll need to know the name and occupation of each individual donor.

I will appreciate anything you can give, and so will principled candidates.

Ed Hanks
Colorado Conservative Action
1005 Northridge Rd.
Littleton, CO 80126 720-301-4270
coloconservative@aol.com

Find Colorado Conservative Action at www.coloradoconservative.org
($550 donation limit - US citizens only)

or

Find the Conservative Renewal Fund at www.renewalauthority.org
($50 donation limit - US citizens only)

How “Bitter” Conservatives Got Us President Reagan

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 19:06:00 +0000

If not for the “unreasonable” refusal of conservatives to vote for Gerald Ford in the 1976 presidential race, we might have missed the presidency of Ronald Reagan altogether.

Would that have been a good thing? Avoiding Carter's disastrous four years?

Indeed, we could have gone straight from a 6-year Ford presidency (1974-1984) into an 8-year Bob Dole or George H.W. Bush presidency (1981-1988) without even bothering to change business as usual in the GOP.

Just imagine. A regime of moderate Republican control – Nixon, Ford, Dole, Bush… Maybe culminating decades later with Mitt Romney.

We could have seen four decades of Republicans, with only brief, one-term Democrat “corrections.” None of the controversy over “divisive” social issues. None of the pain of reducing government. And, in fact, none of the rabid dislike of Republicans by liberals – why hate those whose differences are merely a matter of degree?

Without that jolt of cold-shower Carterism, would the conservative movement have been strong enough to put Reagan over the top in 1980, against strong challenges by “Vice President Bob Dole” or perhaps “Senator George H.W. Bush?” President Ford would have steered the nomination in their direction. Without Carter, the inadequacies of the Republican establishment would have gone un-exposed, the yearning for a conservative hero uninspired.

In 1976, the incumbent president, Gerald Ford, had taken over from a wounded and resigned Richard Nixon. Jimmy Carter took him on – a fresh, up-and-coming governor from Georgia, with a promise to govern as a moderate, not corrupted by Washington politics.

The decision in November wasn’t really a post-Watergate blowout, like many assume. The fact that Carter won by 57 electoral votes obscures the fact that he took only 50.1% of the popular vote (Ford 48%) and a switch of only 29 electoral votes – Texas and Delaware would do it, or New Jersey and Missouri – would have given Ford a full term of his own.

Ronald Reagan spoiled his party.

Reagan, formerly an actor and new-ideas governor of California, didn’t feel Ford met the test for wise government policy. Ford was an example of the “traditional, Rockefeller Republican” who agreed with Democrats that government could provide the solution to problems… IF used in the “right” way. So Reagan declared to run as the conservative alternative to the presumptive nominee.

Everybody knew how THAT had worked out before – 1964, Barry Goldwater. The “failure of conservatism.” Eyes were rolled.

Conventional wisdom said it was stupid to boldly defy the Soviet Union, or to drastically shake up government structures and spending, to try out new, untested economic policies.

But conservative Republicans – the “Tea Party” of that day – were fired up about a paradigm change in Washington. They got behind Reagan in the primaries, and Reagan and Ford entered the Republican National Convention with virtually a 50-50 split in delegates. The decision hung in the balance. Some historians suggest it was Sen. Goldwater’s endorsement of Ford – “for the good of the Party” – that tipped the scales and barely allowed Ford to prevail.

Ford mounted a competitive race against Carter. In the end, he lost the General Election by the slim margins described earlier. Most historians partially blame the bitterness of conservative Reagan supporters who wouldn’t come around behind the more moderate nominee. For many conservatives, Ford was just too tainted with old, country-club tradition to support. This wasn’t why they’d gotten into politics – to choose the lesser of two evils.

Wouldn’t it have been better to choose the “better candidate,” when given a choice between only two people who were likely to win? Why not vote for Ford, if a non-vote or a third-party vote were essentially a vote for Carter? Many Reagan supporters “sucked it up” and voted for Ford, while holding their nose.

But others stuck defiantly to principle, and refused to endorse a moderate, “government is the answer” political philosophy that they felt was already destroying the country.

Without this outgrowth from the bitter primary battle, Ford might well have won. The entire course of American and world history would have been different.

No President Ronald Reagan. No conservative takeover of the GOP. No shakeup of the Washington establishment. No challenging military buildup against the Soviet Union. No “pesky” divisions over the abortion issue.

If conservatives had just been “sensible” and supported the Republican nominee, no matter who he was, or what he believed, would that have been a good thing?

Ronald Reagan required two things to have a chance to win in 1980 – for Gerald Ford to lose… AND for Jimmy Carter to win! The dismal failure of the Carter presidency set up Reagan’s victory in 1980, by showing just how bankrupt, and how mistaken, the Left’s progressive, pro-government fiscal policy and timid foreign policy ideas were.

If there had been no President Carter – and if Gerald Ford had continued those same left-thinking policies the modern GOP had typically accepted – there would have been no conservative revolution.

Would that have been a good thing?

At least the GOP would still hold the White House, right? Isn’t that what’s important? The lesser of two evils? Perpetually?

In the end, withholding one's vote, as a matter of principle, is how principled voters change their party - NOT in the short-term, but definitely in the long-term. Parties DO NOT change unless voters reserve the power to withhold their vote on principle - they only get worse, and less principled, taking their voters for granted.

A vote for a “moderate Republican” today may stifle the conservative movement – cutting off the career of the next Reagan - and continue to habituate the GOP to cultivating more moderates in the confidence that conservatives will vote for whomever they give us.

The wise move for conservatives is to vote for the nominee if he is a conservative, and to hold out for better if he’s not. Don’t feed the trolls in Washington!

Ed Hanks is a former political speechwriter and press secretary who currently works with the pro-life Personhood movement, and consults for pro-Personhood candidates.

Tom Tancredo for Governor

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:58:00 +0000

Tom Tancredo is clearly the best candidate for Governor of Colorado, but some of my very conservative, less conservative, and generally Republican friends have gotten stuck on some misinformation which keeps them locked into supporting Republican candidate Dan Maes.

I've expressed my view on voting for principles over party before, in The Folly of the "Big Tent." Basically, political parties give your principles voice and strength only so long as your party actually follows those principles. If they've stopped following your principles, then voting third party is the ONLY way to make your voice heard, even if it means "losing" the election cycle by causing your preferred party to lose. Next time around, the party will be smarter about what positions they take, and considering how humdrum support for the GOP was from its own "base" in 2006 and 2008, contrasted against how strong many of the GOP candidates are this time around, this pretty much proves my point. I.e. by not voting GOP, conservatives "fixed" the GOP (to an extent).

The fact that Tom Tancredo is a "third party" candidate (nevermind that he's polling three times higher than the Republican candidate for governor) should not scare people off. The American Constitution Party is a party that has always stood for values the GOP has always said it stood for (during election time anyway). The fact is, none of us really know what Dan Maes believes, because we know for a fact he's lied (if you doubt this, see below), and so we're never sure if what he says he believes is really what he believes. This is especially clear since his statements on abortion, gun control, immigration policy, etc. have changed over time.

There are two major sticking points keeping Dan Maes supporters from giving up on him and turning to Tom Tancredo, despite the fact that Maes is unlikely to get more than 10% of the vote, in the final tally. Those are 1) partisan/factional investment in the candidate you supported from the beginning, and 2) distrust of Tom Tancredo. I'm going to try to defuse both of these reasons.

Many Republican voters believe in a principle of "always vote Republican." Talk-show host Mike Rosen is the biggest pusher of this concept, which of course I disagree with. Compounding this is this year's Tea Party movement, and its many passionate supporters (who I generally agree with), who believe the Tea Party "made" Dan Maes, and so if Maes loses, so does the Tea Party. The problem with this is that the candidate who the GOP nominated, and who the Tea Party pushed, is NOT the same candidate we thought he was when we supported him. This can be seen by comparing his contradictory statements on the issues, examining his squirrelly campaign spending and hidden books, and understanding his falsified or exaggerated resume. It can be further illustrated by the fact that most of Maes' most vehement critics are his former supporters, including some who volunteered for him (particularly campaign treasurers!), or worked on his staff.

Whether his side or the police chief's side is correct, with regard to his brief record as a police officer in Kansas, it's clear that Maes was not the "Serpico" law-enforcing star he made himself out to be. At best, he worked undercover in a non-dangerous relationship with small time crooks. At worst, he was collaborating with organized crime and tipped them off to a police investigation. I've read the relevant documents on Talking Points Memo and I can establish no "proof" one way or another. Maes also claimed to be a successful businessman, which also appears to have been an exaggeration or falsification. He had good years and he had bad years. And no one is quite sure how he's paying for his house in Evergreen, which brings us to Freda Poundstone...

Freda Poundstone says she gave Dan Maes $300+/- cash because he asked her to help him pay his mortgage, which was behind. Many Maes supporters suggest that Freda Poundstone is a longtime politician, and a Tancredo supporter (though she was earlier a strong Maes supporter), and therefore her word cannot be trusted. Here's my refutation: No one has to believe Freda's account in order to know that Maes lied to all of us. Dan Maes himself admitted he received a substantial sum of money in cash (around $300) from Freda. Whether you believe Freda is telling the truth or not, Maes acknowledged she gave him money, which means either he was lying to us about being a successful businessman, and instead he needed help with his mortgage, or he accepted an illegal cash donation and then didn't report it on his campaign finance filings -- a double illegality. Take your pick -- Maes is either a liar, or a crook. Ironically, he looks better if Freda is telling the truth!

I, personally, was a Dan Maes supporter until after the primary. I voted for him, and I didn't switch automatically when Tom Tancredo entered the race. Once I concluded Dan Maes had lied to me (and especially once he appointed Tambor Williams as his running mate -- someone who I like personally, but whose position on abortion differs from mine), I could only start to believe at least some of the many other charges of resume falsification and financial irregularity were true also. I know Dan Maes lied to me, so I don't trust him, and I don't understand how anyone else still can!

The other objection is some people don't trust Tom Tancredo, and think he's a closet liberal. I laughed the first time I heard this. I got concerned when I saw some of the charges made by Maes supporters about Tancredo, and I looked into them. Some of these charges didn't make me happy. But overall, Tom Tancredo's record is consistently -- even stunningly! -- conservative. I have no worries that Tancredo is a "tax and spend" liberal, as some of these people charge. I was right the first time -- the charge is laughable.

Everyone who's been around Colorado politics for long knows that Tom Tancredo and Bob Schaffer were our most conservative representatives in Washington DC for many years -- they generally voted the same -- and until Doug Lamborn got to Congress Tancredo probably had Colorado's most conservative voting record ever! The National Taxpayer's Union measures fiscally conservative votes in Congress, and rates Congressmen on their votes. Tancredo's worst rating ever was in 2008, when he got 77% from NTU (which still ranked him as the 51st most conservative member of Congress!). In his 10 years in DC, Tancredo was ranked for 5 years as one of the top 5 MOST conservative Congressmen in the whole House of Representatives (i.e. in 2001 he was ranked 3rd out of 435!). Colorado's local affiliate of the NTU is the Colorado Union of Taxpayers (CUT). In 1977-78, when Tancredo was in the legislature, he rated 100% with CUT. He was always in the top 15 most fiscally conservative legislators, and many of those other legislators who have earned top rankings from CUT over the years are supporters of Tom Tancredo. At least 2 members of CUT's board of directors are listed on Tom's endorsement page. I can find no CUT board members on Dan Maes' endorsement list. The charge that Tancredo isn't conservative enough is silly. A few bad choices (which only dropped him to 77% with the NTU) cannot outweigh his years of fiscally conservative leadership.

Lastly, some question Tancredo's ethics for having presented us with a confusing range of political choices this year. First he was in, then he was out, then he was in again... Many fault him for not winning through the Republican primary, but I believe I understand what happened. He was not being "underhanded" as many charge. He was doing what he felt was the best choice at each moment. I'm no close friend of Tom's, though I did get to spend some very revealing personal time with him in Philadelphia in 2000, which made me really like and trust him. But I've had occasion to speak with him in private at different times, and it's only reinforced my feelings of trust in him. With that insight as a guide, here is what I believe happened, to explain his seemingly odd behavior:

Tancredo didn't want either Scott McInnis or Maes as Governor (he apparently picked up things about Maes early on that others like me didn't recognize -- either that he wasn't qualified or had serious problems in his background). Tancredo figured he and Josh Penry would split the conservative vote (Penry was the conservative "golden child" back then, though his luster has been tarnished by his own behavior during the 2010 campaign), so Tancredo dropped out to avoid being a spoiler. Shortly afterward (to my memory), Penry was also talked into leaving. Having no better choices, Tancredo backed a qualified but not-so-conservative McInnis after getting certain promises from him, because he figured he was better than an unqualified Maes. McInnis pressured him to attack third parties to prevent defections (i.e. a well-publicized article where Tancredo said the Tea Party shouldn't mount a third-party challenger), and Tancredo went along because he hadn't considered third parties viable. Then the plagiarism scandal hit McInnis hard, and it looked like Maes might pull off the nomination. Tancredo offered to rejoin the Republican primary, but since most of us still trusted Maes, no one listened. And so Tancredo went to the Constitution Party. In the end, Tancredo may have been the only one who saw all this coming, and I believe he decided unselfishly at every point.

Tancredo helped found the Independence Institute -- one of the nation's foremost watchdogs on fiscal and civil liberties issues -- and served as its president. Tom Tancredo is a reliable fiscal conservative, and has been his whole career in politics. One reason GOP insiders don't like him is he often refused to "play ball" when the President or GOP leadership asked him to vote for Republican-sponsored spending packages. Tancredo is also more trustworthy than Maes on issues protecting a Right to Life for the unborn, because both Tancredo and his running mate have endorsed Amendment 62, the Personhood Amendment.

We need Tom Tancredo's kind of leadership at the State Capitol. I urge all conservatives and all Republicans to vote for him, and not Dan Maes.

Don't Be That Guy!

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:13:00 +0000

When pro-life candidates who support the Personhood of the unborn child are pressed by the media or their own constituents to defend their beliefs, there's a temptation to go deer-in-the-headlights and back away from solid, principled positions.

DON'T BE THAT GUY!

When you take a principled position on any controversial issue, your political opponents and media gossiphounds are going to make it sound like an extreme position. "Why would you hold such an extreme position?!" they ask. There are two reactions, of course.

You could back away and say I don't hold that position -- distance yourself from the issue. And this is typical candidate behavior, isn't it? But what it does is leave the media and the general public with the conclusion that it WAS an extreme position (or you wouldn't have backed away, right?) and YOU once held it!

DON'T BE THAT GUY (or GAL)!

What's worse, many of your supporters probably support you because you once held that position. What are they to think when you back away? You've not only compromised on the principle which was their reason for supporting you, but you've also, by implication, called THEM extreme for holding the position you've backed away from!

DON'T BE THAT GUY!

The best reaction is to calmly and reasonably explain to the voter, or the media, why it's NOT an extreme position.

Ronald Reagan didn't back away or "run to the center" when challenged with tough questions about dearly held principles. He stuck to his guns, explained why the position was mainstream common sense, rather than extreme. And more often than not the public came to view his position as mainstream!

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund has recently illustrated this, in a fundraising letter. Referring to Tea Party nominees for the U.S. Senate, they charge, "They want to outlaw all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Friend, their position was considered fringe and their candidates ludicrous just a few months ago. Now, they're mainstream." (ht Jill Stanek)

Planned Parenthood is simply recognizing the changing playing field. Five years ago, only a few pro-life activists knew what Personhood meant, and a majority of Americans supported a "right to choose." Two years ago, more than 50% of Americans (including women) identified themselves in polls as pro-life. Today, a broad range of voters and mainstream political candidates around the country are saying "I support the Personhood of the unborn child, and I believe abortion should be banned!" Pro-Life Personhood is now a mainstream political movement.

Because it's such a new concept, candidates who aren't carefully educated in how to respond to tough questions about rape/incest exceptions or birth control are tempted to run away from the issue, even if they once espoused it.

DON'T BE THAT GUY (or GAL)!

Colorado's U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck made this mistake recently. I'm still not 100% convinced he's changed his mind about anything (his campaign spokesman correctly explained his position to 9news.com recently, saying, "Buck believes life 'begins at conception,' so birth control methods that don't impact that (i.e. condoms, some forms of the pill) are fine with him. Others that would keep a fertilized egg from implanting like hormone-based birth control methods, some other forms of the pill, IUDs, RU-486 and what's known as the morning-after pill, are not supported by him." (Source: E-mail from Buck spokesman Owen Loftus to 9NEWS, Aug. 26)).

But the press said he'd changed his mind about supporting Colorado's Amendment 62 (the Personhood Amendment) and the best he could do was clarify that he supports Personhood in concept but hasn't taken a position on any state ballot initiatives. By not jumping on the accusation full-force, Buck allowed some voters to believe he's changed his mind, whether he really did or not. It's not helping with supporters, and it's not helping with moderates or independents, either, because whether or not he still holds that supposedly "extreme" position, everybody knows he once did.

Buck (or his campaign) blinked when he should have stood firm.

DON'T BE THAT GUY!

Simple talking points on Personhood:
1) Arguing for the Personhood of the unborn child is not extreme. Arguing for the continued deaths of 4,000 unborn children every day is extreme!

2) If abortion is murder (i.e. kills an unborn human individual with his/her own unique DNA), as I believe it is, then why would I support an exception just because that child was conceived as part of a rape? You can't punish an innocent Person for a crime committed against somebody else. The inalienable Right to Life for an innocent Person, as guaranteed in the Constitution (the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the Declaration of Independence too) applies, no matter the circumstances.

3) Only 1% of abortions are for rape or incest -- it's extremely rare. Almost every mom who has an abortion is traumatized or depressed by the experience. Adding an abortion to the crime of rape doesn't "comfort" the victim -- it only adds another trauma on top of the first. In cases of incest or date rape, the abortion often serves to shield the criminal from prosecution by covering up the crime. This allows the rapist (the child's father or relative) to continue an incestuous relationship instead of exposing the criminal.

4) No form of birth control would be affected unless it actually has the potential to kill a developing child after conception. If a candidate (or even a voter) believes that life begins at conception, and that all human life should be protected, then they should not have a problem with this. The amendment deals only with living human Persons, not with sperm or eggs before fertilization. Therefore, it cannot logically or legally affect anything other than an abortifacient form of birth control, whether that drug acts as an abortifacient as its primary purpose or has that effect as a secondary side effect. This would affect some forms of birth control, but if a form of birth control is properly called a "contraceptive" (i.e. meaning it acts by preventing conception) then it would not be affected.

5) In Vitro Fertilization would not be banned, but "surplus" embryos (developing human children) could not be "disposed of" -- they would have to be cared for and adopted out through programs such as the Snowflake Children.

I know this isn't something your typical candidate training prepared you for. I even know this may not be the "focus of your campaign." I know politicians have a gut instinct to run away when a voter or reporter accuses you of being extreme because you're 100% pro-life.

DON'T BE THAT GUY (or GAL)!

Being 100% pro-life, supporting Personhood, opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest or for health** reasons is NOT extreme! It has become a mainstream position, and it is the position increasingly held by voters across the United States! Every month that passes and every year that passes, more Americans are coming to hold this very same principle as their own.

I work as a part-time political consultant and campaign consultant on a contract basis. I am happy to offer my time for 20 minutes free to any pro-Personhood candidate in any state who needs help on messaging for these issues. I'd also be glad to contract my time for $35/hr to anyone who needs more assistance in running or preparing a pro-life campaign (I'll work with anybody who pledges to support Personhood in their campaign). If you want to meet in person, or would like for me to speak at an event or engagement, let me know and we can make arrangements for time/travel, etc. Contact me via e-mail with your contact information: Coloconservative (at) aol.com (please put "Personhood Question" in the subject line).

Please also consider donating money to support candidates who hold a principled pro-life position (i.e. pro-Personhood), through my political website: ColoradoConservative.org.

Ed Hanks is a former speechwriter for the Governor of Colorado, a former Press Secretary in the Colorado House of Representatives, and has also served as a campaign consultant and constituent contact director.

**A note on "life of the mother exceptions": Many pro-lifers get stuck on the “life of the mother” exception, because it’s the most compelling of the “hard cases” exceptions some regulations are meant to address (how many times have we heard politicians recite the line, "I oppose abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother"?). But we need not fall victim even to the life of the mother objection. The Personhood movement cares deeply about the lives of both, mother and child, especially since if the mother dies before the baby comes to term, the child will obviously die too. However, that doesn’t mean we need a “life of the mother exception” in law. Instead, the anti-abortion statute should be absolute. The life of the mother is saved by a doctor trying to save both lives (and thereby “do no harm”), not by a doctor trying to kill one patient in order to save the other. It’s the same concept as separating cojoined twins. The goal should always be to preserve both lives. This is not always possible, because of relative viability, and so sometimes one of the patients dies. The measure of crime or not is intent. If ever the doctor attempts to kill one patient, rather than save him/her, that’s where it becomes homicide. -- Ed Hanks

Analysis of GOP Primary Results

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:32:00 +0000

With the final results for the GOP August 10 Primary mostly totaled, we can look back and see how the election went in terms of pro-life, pro-Personhood candidates.

Overall, I see it as a big win for Personhood, despite a few unfortunate setbacks.

In two key primary races the pro-Personhood candidate lost. In the 3rd Congressional District Bob McConnell was one of the first candidates to return the Colorado Right to Life survey, and he affirmed support for Personhood. His opponent didn’t, hasn’t endorsed Personhood, and seems embarrassed by the whole “pro-life” aspect of the campaign, though he claims to be pro-life. But Scott Tipton won, and pro-lifers need to reach out to him and insist that he publicly support Personhood. Tipton’s already lost a race to Democrat John Salazar once, and he will need the support of the pro-life community to win. He’s got work to do, and he can start by publicly endorsing Amendment 62.

In the 6th State Senate District, in southwestern Colorado, there was an important race for State Senate between pro-Personhood Dean Boehler and pro-abortion Ellen Roberts. It looked like Boehler was going to win, but then liberal special interests spent more than $40,000 in 527 money attacking him and promoting his opponent. Plus his opponent outspent him with her own funds. These special interests included groups connected with the pro-Obamacare, pro-abortion Colorado Medical Society. Ellen Roberts is the most pro-abortion Republican in the Legislature today, and so the pro-abortion medical interests will win no matter who wins this race. It’s best if the pro-abort winner is “their pro-abort” (i.e. a Democrat) not “our pro-abort” (a Republican), because that will make it easier to put a pro-lifer into that seat in 4 years.

Also, in Denver’s moderate southwest State Senate district, pro-Personhood CJ Garbo lost to a moderate Republican whose views we don’t know.

But everywhere else, pro-Personhood candidates prevailed over their opponents in hotly contested primaries.

The biggest victory for Personhood today was Ken Buck, for U.S. Senate. Opponent Jane Norton had endorsed Personhood, and generally had a pro-life record, but on her website she endorsed abortion in cases of rape and incest, which is a stand entirely opposed to the concept of Personhood. Ken Buck endorsed Personhood early on, and has been a reliable voice in favor of protecting all life at the beginning of its biological development.

Americans United for Life – a pro-compromise, establishment pro-life group – had endorsed Jane Norton. That was the first endorsement of any candidate that organization had made in four decades. Why did they endorse her? Because of Colorado Right to Life and the Personhood movement! AUL realized that if the winner of the primary for the U.S. Senate was a candidate who supported the Personhood strategy, instead of their compromised regulation strategy, it would be the beginning of the end for their control over the regulatory process. Why would they make this their first endorsement ever, in any state in all of history? Why prefer a candidate with exceptions over a candidate who would protect the life of the unborn from conception forward -- NO exceptions? Ironically, Americans United for Life endorsed Jane Norton specifically because she wasn't 100% pro-life! This was a key race for them – for all the marbles – and they lost. Personhood won.

Another key victory was in the Governor’s race, where we now know there will be two candidates on the November ballot who support Personhood – Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo. Scott McInnis had endorsed Personhood, and even told me in person that if a Personhood bill crossed his desk he would sign it, but there were always doubts on our side if he was serious, or just putting us on. Now we don’t have to worry about it. I’ve spoken with Dan Maes about Personhood myself, after some comments he made that caused us to doubt, and I came away assured that he was serious – he will support Personhood.

As for Tom Tancredo, who I’m betting will stay in the race until the end, his best chance for victory was Dan Maes winning. If McInnis had won, he would probably have been forced out and replaced by a “safe” Republican with lots of money or name recognition, or both. Such a candidate could be relied upon to get a large percentage of the vote. As it is, there are a lot of Republicans who don’t think Dan Maes can win (I disagree), and so those voters will go to Tancredo. Ever since Tancredo first entered the race I have encouraged a “40% solution.” It’s possible Tancredo could get as little as 10% of the vote, and that could allow Dan Maes to win the Governor’s race with only 46% of the vote (split 46-44). But I don’t think that’s realistic. Dan Maes is either going to prove himself and be a strong candidate, or he’ll slip up and be a weak one. Either way, I believe Tancredo will get at least 15-20% of the vote. This means the path to victory is getting 40% or more of the vote. The winner would get 41%, holding Hickenlooper to 40%, with the spoiler getting 19%. It remains to be seen whether the winner might be Tancredo or Maes, but the requirement for either to win must be to hold Hickenlooper to 40%. That’s possible ONLY if both Maes and Tancredo spend their time talking about conservative principles and beating up on Hickenlooper, not on each other. If they fight each other, they’re just trading conservative votes with each other – the winner will have to expand the number of conservative voters by talking about principles and common sense.

Despite his claims, Ryan Frazier, the winner of the 7th Congressional District primary, is not pro-life. He says he’s personally pro-life, but the government should stay out. It’s worth extending an offer to talk, and see if he’s willing to make a solid commitment for Personhood, but it will be difficult to trust any such commitment.

Nevertheless, three of the seven candidates for districts in Congress are on record as supporting Personhood – Cory Gardner, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman – and there’s a chance either Tipton or Frazier may join with us later.

In the State House, a critical primary in a three way race was won by pro-Personhood Chris Holbert, who just barely beat a pro-abortion opponent with lots of money. He’s in a safe district, and his election in November is pretty much assured.

Another State House primary was won by pro-Personhood Ray Scott over his opponent who was widely believed to be pretending to be conservative, and who refused to sign on with Personhood.

In the State Senate, two Personhood candidates defeated their opponents. Kevin Grantham in Pueblo and Canon City won against a pro-abortion opponent. And in Pueblo itself Vera Ortegon won easily against her opponent who supported Personhood but who also had rape & incest exceptions.

Overall, 11 out of 19 Republicans running for the State Senate this year are pro-Personhood, and there may be more we don’t know about, or who will sign on later.

And in the House 17 out of 65 candidates are on record as supporting Personhood, but probably twice that actually do, and just haven’t gone on record.

Compared to just 2 years ago, there are probably twice as many candidates for the Legislature who are supporting Personhood and most of the Republicans at the top of the ticket (Senate, Governor, Congress) are supporting Personhood now whereas very few did so just 2 years ago.

The whole game has changed with regard to Personhood. With these key Republican figures supporting Personhood, it’s likely Amendment 62 will also do much better at the ballot box in November.

As a final note, as of Wednesday morning, please say a prayer for Georgia. The runoff for Governor of Georgia remains too close to call. Georgia Right to Life is a pro-Personhood ally, and they endorsed four of the five candidates for Governor in Georgia as pro-life, which to them means pro-Personhood. Karen Handel was the only Republican candidate who didn’t support Personhood, and she was one of two candidates in the August 10 Runoff. Handel also gave $1.2 million to Planned Parenthood as a county commissioner, and now claims she “had to” because they were supposedly the only vendor for womens’ health care. Her opponent, Nathan Deal, is pro-Personhood, and he has some ethics issues dogging him, but he remains the only candidate in the runoff who is pro-life.

The Folly of the "Big Tent"

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:06:00 +0000

Here's my response to a blogger who was pushing for the "Big Tent" for the Republican Party. It was the typical argument -- we can't win without the support of whole bunches of people who don't normally vote for the GOP, we can make more progress by building coalitions than by dividing into little groups, etc. It made alot of sense, of course, but also missed a critical dynamic in party and election politics.

I was discussing abortion politics, but the same argument could be made in favor of fiscally conservative politics, etc. But fiscally conservative politics cannot make up for offending and getting rid of moral conservatives. Bob Schaffer tried that in 2008 (stupidly, since he lost many Christian supporters while liberals remembered he had always been pro-life - he lost votes from his base without picking up any on the other side, which is the same problem the GOP in general faces), and Schaffer fell on his face.

My response:

I used to believe in a "big tent," but I've since learned its folly. Without principles, we get nowhere. Reagan didn't offer us a big tent -- he offered us principles, which were broadly appealing and which inspired those who might not otherwise agree with him to vote for him.

There was once a "big tent" party -- the Whigs -- which tried to appeal to northerners and southerners alike by not taking strong stands on controversial issues like slavery. Do you know what happened to them? Probably not, because unless you study the history of the period no one even remembers who they were. In actuality, they split into two parties.

Did both parties lose? Did both of these "third parties" devastate themselves by shedding the big tent, leaving their major party behind, and dividing over matters of misguided principles?

No. One of those parties -- the Republican Party -- came to dominate the politics of the next several decades. For 70 years, in fact, and for a great portion of the century afterward, too.

They stood on a major principle -- opposition to slavery -- which held such a broad appeal that they succeeded where the wishy-washy "big tent" party failed.

The Republican Party today has the opportunity to stand on another major, unifying principle which could inspire them to victory. They could pledge to ban abortion and recognize the Personhood of the unborn child so he or she is not considered property like the slaves.

The Republican Party will succeed or die on this principle. Any attempts to remove the pro-life principle from the platform (which is what "big tent" means, in almost all cases), will destroy the party so that a half-century from today the Republican Party will be as well known as the Whigs are today.

Those "divisive" Christian Conservatives are the base of the Republican Party (and, from what I've found, the base of the Tea Party conservatives too) -- they've handed victory to the GOP in 5 of the last 8 presidential elections, but they're feeling ignored and betrayed. The Republicans can take them or leave them. If they leave them, they will energize another party and make them victorious instead.

Personhood Works, Regulations Don't

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:19:00 +0000

This is a more coherent recap & expansion on my earlier blog post on regulations, and why they undermine the Personhood of the unborn child -- "How We Compromise Ourselves."

I do not question the well-meaning intentions of those legislators who support, or even write, compromise legislation which tries to put limits on abortion in circumstances where a total abortion ban is not realistically possible. We can argue later about which is more "politically realistic" (I think Personhood is, still). But the fact that I believe in the good intentions of the pro-life regulators does not mean that I don't care whether they stop pushing regulations -- I do! -- or that I approve of what they're doing -- I don't! -- or that I will always continue to support regulation-minded legislators if they continue to ignore warnings about the unintended consequences of what they do.

I think the main thing “pro-life regulators” need to understand is that, whether or not Personhood is "practical" in a legal sense (which is the main objection of those pro-lifers who oppose the Personhood strategy, including Archbishop Charles Chaput and Clarke Forsythe of AUL), our primary problem as pro-lifers is that we've been making the wrong argument -- one which won't "change peoples' hearts" (which everybody agrees is the goal).

The regulations may teach some people about the Right to Life, but more often (esp. for wishy-washy or "moderate" citizens, who are the ones we need to convince in order to succeed in passing legislation or electing legislators) regulations only suggest a "moderate" solution exists for what they are led to believe is a policy question -- where do you draw the line?

Let me restate that.

Regulations clearly “suggest” to a citizen observer that there’s a policy question, to which there are “extreme” solutions (to right or left) and “moderate” solutions. Typical American citizens being who they are, almost all of the people in this category (i.e. the moderate, middle-of-the-road people who don’t often think about policy issues, but when they do they try to find a middle ground, striving never to seem “extreme”) will seek the middle ground – the moderate way – and won’t see the larger implications of the issue at hand.

The argument pro-lifers need to make -- and Personhood makes this argument 100% of the time, while regulations may succeed in making it only 30% of the time -- is that there is an actual Right to Life which is inalienable as a principle, and may not be violated for any reason. That message comes through with Personhood, and it's making progress.

I’ll restate that too.

Personhood “suggests” to a citizen observer that abortion is most certainly NOT a policy question with a spectrum of possible solutions, but is rather a question of principles. Two principles, as it happens – either pro-life or pro-abortion. When the abortion “question” is posed as a principle, and not as a policy question, Americans are actually more likely to choose life instead of death.

Polls show something like 80-90% of Americans believe “there is a God,” even if most of them may not call themselves Christian or correctly follow the teachings of the true God. Believing in God suggests an absolute moral standard, and when the abortion question is measured against an absolute moral standard, very few Americans want to be caught on the wrong, or immoral, side. Since they’re forced to choose between a principle of “abortion is right and moral” versus “abortion is always wrong” one option stands out as more correct and more moral than the other.

That’s the “practical” reason why pro-lifers must reject regulations and embrace the Personhood strategy. The Personhood strategy accomplishes what we want to accomplish – a changing of hearts and minds in society – whereas regulations are far less effective in accomplishing the change we want.

Our message always gets muddled when we're talking about regulations, because every regulation inherently denies there is a Right to Life (if there were an inalienable, inviolable Right to Life, then there's nothing to regulate!).

Consider this line from the text of Roe v. Wade: "Endnote 54: When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?"

The US Supreme Court in 1972/73 didn't simply lay a roadmap for pro-lifers by noting that if you establish Personhood in law, you can protect the unborn as Persons. They also highlighted the logical error in the "pro-life with exceptions" mentality.

The key point is this: The Supreme Court logically concluded that because Texas had an exception to their anti-abortion statute*, Texas could not simultaneously argue that an unborn child was a Person under their law, because the two concepts – a regulation vs. a principle – are contradictory. The regulation always denies the principle, so if there exists a regulation, then the principle must not be the law of the land. It’s simple logic.

Ed Hanks

* A note on "life of the mother exceptions": Many pro-lifers get stuck on the “life of the mother” exception, because it’s the most compelling of the “hard cases” exceptions some regulations are meant to address (how many times have we heard politicians recite the line, "I oppose abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother"?). But we need not fall victim even to the life of the mother objection. The Personhood movement cares deeply about the lives of both, mother and child, especially since if the mother dies before the baby comes to term, the child will obviously die too. However, that doesn’t mean we need a “life of the mother exception” in law. Instead, the anti-abortion statute should be absolute. The life of the mother is saved by a doctor trying to save both lives (and thereby “do no harm”), not by a doctor trying to kill one patient in order to save the other. It’s the same concept as separating cojoined twins. The goal should always be to preserve both lives. This is not always possible, because of relative viability, and so sometimes one of the patients dies. The measure of crime or not is intent. If ever the doctor attempts to kill one patient, rather than save him/her, that’s where it becomes homicide.

My Reply to Westword's "Screw the Abortion Debate"

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:30:00 +0000

Westword commentator J. David McSwane wrote a humor piece meant to mock the Personhood movement. I had to throw in my comments, which are below his comments and the link to his article.

It's interesting to note that I actually agree with him on one thing -- Personhood folk scouring the streets for your signature are working to set forth a series of events that will alter the course of human history!

"Screw the abortion debate: Here's why a personhood amendment could mean armageddon"
(briefly excerpted, then linked, to Westword - Denver's hyper-liberal alternative paper)
by J. David McSwane

Personhood USA, a national pro-life group, is gathering signatures in Colorado (again) to secure a spot on the ballot for a voter initiative to redefine the start of a person's life as the first point of biological development.

Weird, right? You have no idea.

Most people think abortion rights established by Roe v. Wade is the greatest thing at stake if the amendment makes the grade. But this effort jeopardizes far more than that: It actually threatens to alter time and space as we think we know it. We could very well be spiraling toward the apocalypse.

What the religious folk scouring the streets for your signature don't realize is they're toying with a force far greater than any divisive abortion debate. They are, in fact, working to set forth a series of events that will alter the course of human history.

To read the rest of his story, go here: http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/03/screw_the_abortion_debate_here.php

My Comment:

You know, David, at my church our pastor actually teaches this -- that we're really 9 months older than we thought we were. And it's had some mind-blowing, conception-changing (excuse the pun!) effects. We start thinking of the living, moving, developing baby inside as something more -- something, well... something living, moving and developing!

We start thinking of our unborn children as our grandfathers and forefathers thought of them -- as a cherished member of the family, just one we can't talk to yet (except through the womb membranes -- you know scientists say unborn children learn, don't you, in relation to the degree their mothers read to them or play music for them in the womb?).

What's more, we KNOW the world won't blow up when we suddenly realize there are more people among us than we thought. Why? Because it's happened before. When the Census circulators in 1860 took their survey, they undercounted black people as only 3/5 of a person, because that's what the law said they were (and the Supreme Court affirmed this, just like Roe v. Wade) -- it wasn't until the Constitutional Amendments of 1865 that black people were granted Personhood under the law.

So there's precedent! Not only do we know that the world won't blow up, but we know that human and civil rights movements eventually prevail if people stop thinking just about what the law says, and more about right and wrong and what the law SHOULD say in order to conform to what's right!

How We Compromise Ourselves: A Warning To Pro-Lifers

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:09:00 +0000

The author is a former political speechwriter and press secretary with much experience in politics and the reading and analysis of legislation, and also operated a political correspondence office at the Capitol where he read every letter addressed to the Governor for a number of years -- a very helpful education in learning how people think and why...

For many years now, I have warned against “compromised incrementalism” – the mistaken belief that we “move the ball forward” or “save some babies now so that others may be saved later” by pushing for compromise legislation.

This legislation may be framed as great legislation by well-meaning Christian legislators, but it may have unintended consequences of devastating proportions!

I first spoke out publicly about this in December of 2006, with a column published in WorldNetDaily.com – A Growing Split in the Pro-Life Community (which, coincidentally, was the starting point and first post of this blog). In short, I pointed out that the idea of a law requiring abortionists to administer anesthesia so an aborted baby would not feel pain is heinously perverted in its implications.

Since then, the anti-compromise faction of the pro-life movement (now recognized largely as the Personhood Movement, with proposals for Personhood Amendments now active in 40 states) has persevered, educated, and brought a growing number of pro-lifers to recognize a shift in our perceived mission – a return to emphasis on the Right to Life, rather than merely trying to place curbs and cautions on the institution of legalized abortion.

Are they a majority of pro-lifers now? It wouldn’t surprise me. I've met and spoken with dozens of recent converts -- people who once supported compromised regulations (as did I) but have forever changed their minds, and will refuse to ever support one again. I know of several legislators (from other states than my own, sadly) who have made this conversion themselves. Alabama's Judge Roy Moore has, also, and who better to understand the legal argument from a Christian perspective?!

But pro-life leadership and pro-life legislators are slow to recognize the sea change. Many of them either fully support, or give lip service to, the Personhood movement, and to Personhood Amendments, while their hearts and minds still believe Personhood is too forward-thinking, and they want to remain in their comfortable world of political compromise legislation.

They fail to realize that by supporting compromise legislation, they do two things:

1) They undermine the public perception of a Right to Life – they instead build a perception that there are “good” abortions and “bad” abortions and that proper regulation will end the abuses and socially-negative consequences of more gruesome abortion procedures while “compassionately” leaving those forms of abortion which our society finds necessary and useful.

Average Americans, being average Americans, are always seeking the middle ground, and this political debate allows them to participate in a process of finding it, while no one who’s not an activist on one side or the other of the issue realizes that this is fundamentally a question of principle – one side is right, the other is wrong, and it’s the public duty to find it!

Constantly pushing for compromise legislation prevents the general public from ever having to really deal with the principle in question, and keeps most from realizing the argument is about principle at all!

2) According to Dr. Charles Rice, a legal professor at Notre Dame University, laws such as parental notification laws, “abortion-ultrasound” laws, late-term abortion bans, etc. actually build a legal framework to protect the institution of abortion. They establish a legal status, by implication, for abortion – a judge looks at a law which puts legal limits on abortion, and the obvious legal/logical implication is that unless the specified limits apply in a situation, then abortion is clearly legal!

Dr. Rice believes that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, many of these “pro-life” laws on the books today would become the enabling language for pro-aborts and judges to prove that abortion is legal in those states.

Imagine that – pro-abortion liberals refusing to repeal a “pro-life” parental notification law because it establishes in law that abortion is legal so long as a parent agrees to the minor child’s abortion!

Any time you argue in law that “…abortion is illegal unless you do this…” you are simultaneously leaving the assumption that “…if you do this, then abortion IS legal…” These types of law are called “and then you can kill the baby” laws. “If the mother views an ultrasound of her unborn baby, and signs a release stating she’s seen it, then she can kill her baby.” “If a minor child has the approval or her parent, guardian, or a judge, then she can kill her baby.”

Laws such as abortion-ultrasound laws automatically imply that a woman has a right to decide to kill her own living, moving, growing unborn child if she so chooses!!!

The more of these laws that exist on the books – “pro-life” laws which end with “and then you can kill the baby” - the stronger the case for legal abortion is. You cannot regulate something that’s not legal – that’s a legal truism. If it’s not legal, there’s no reason to regulate it, therefore if it’s regulated under the law it is by definition legal.

Pro-life legislators are unwittingly writing the death sentences for millions of babies by writing legislation intended to "save some babies" because they don't think we can realistically save the rest!

Plus, all this time, while we argue about where to draw the line between legal abortions and illegal abortions, we’re failing to teach the general public that all abortions kill an innocent child, and therefore abortion is always wrong.

Recognition of the Personhood of the unborn child is not just our best option, and not just our final goal. It is the ONLY answer, and must be our ONLY goal. Supporting compromised legislation, at best, is one step forward, two steps back -- it undermines a public belief in the Right to Life. It makes our job so much harder when we try to convince society that our Right to Life is God-given and inalienable.

Why don't these laws automatically shock us? Why do we fail to recognize the unintended consequences?

Our problem is this. We have become so comfortable with abortion – just as one generation of Germans was comfortable with “solving” the Jewish “problem” and many generations of Americans were comfortable with the “peculiar institution” of slavery – we’ve ceased to think of abortion as comparable to the Holocaust or slavery.

Yes, our intellectual mind makes the comparison, but our emotional reactions are different, because we’re so “close” to the problem. We know it's legal, so we feel powerless to say it's murder (just as Christians in Germany failed to recognize that legalized extermination was murder).

We fail to be properly "shocked" at how bad legal language is. It seems to us that "of course we must acknowledge it's legal, because it IS!" By writing ANYTHING into law which states or leaves a legal implication that abortion is legal only builds the foundations of legalized abortion.

To show ourselves what's really going on -- in order to feel properly "shocked" -- it’s necessary to compare abortion to other evils of history, or else we won’t realize how wicked our “pro-life” laws may actually be. Replace unborn child, in the language, with Jew, or replace abortion with extermination by gassing. Replace the regulation of abortion with the regulation of anything else which we know in our hearts is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Then we will see...

Do we want pro-life legislators signing their names and reputations to bills which say you can only perform an abortion in the first trimester? This is the moral equivalent of passing a law saying slavery is prohibited in Maine, but slavery is a legally protected institution in Texas. Congressmen, in the 1850s, actually passed compromised laws like this – what do we think of those legislators today? Do we consider them anti-slavery, or does history judge them as having perpetuated the institution of slavery? In case you’re wondering, the judgment of history upon these men is not favorable.

So, as an exercise, I’ve substituted the language of an actual proposed Colorado law – one strongly backed by Colorado’s pro-life legislators – with language which purports to “protect” Jews in Nazi Germany. See what you think. Would you sign your name to this law? Would you vote for it? Would you really be willing to “save some Jews” by affirmatively underscoring a legal status for killing others???

A Modest Proposal…

Please note before reading: This “proposed law” is a work of political satire, and is meant to be read as a warning to Christian and pro-life legislators and their supporters that they may be playing into the hands of the enemy because of the wording they use in their proposed legislation.

No ill will toward Jews or "well-meaning but compromised" legislators is meant by this – certainly, just the opposite.

The majority of the text is unimportant, or has irrelevant scope, and so is not included here.

A Bill for an Act
Concerning the Protection of Jews from Unreasonable Death
Making an appropriation in connection therewith

Bill Summary

The bill creates a new statutory part that addresses the fatal consequences of persecution upon Jewish residents in the state and includes the following crimes:

- Murder of an adult Jew
- Voluntary manslaughter of an adult Jew

An adult Jew is defined as 16 years or older. The bill describes acts that do not constitute crimes under the new part.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Third Reich

….

Part 5 – Protection of Jews Act

Acts not an offense [this is where the law specifies its scope, and what it does NOT prohibit]: This part 5 shall not apply to:

a) Acts that cause the death of an adult Jew if those acts are committed during a legal extermination procedure to which a Nazi magistrate has signed a notice of intent, or a person authorized by law to exterminate Jews;
b) Acts committed by one Jew against another Jew;
c) Acts that are committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of extermination in an authorized, controlled facility designed for that purpose;

Definitions. As used in this Part 5, unless the context otherwise requires, “Adult Jew” means a Jew whose stage of development has reached or surpassed sixteen years since birth, such that he or she may contribute, voluntarily or involuntarily, to the State.

Murder of an Adult Jew. A person who causes the death of an adult Jew, without lawful justification, is guilty of Murder of an Adult Jew if he or she: …

…

Voluntary manslaughter of an Adult Jew. A person who causes the death of an adult Jew, without lawful justification, is guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter of an Adult Jew if he or she…

Etc. etc. etc.
…

THE END
(there! you've "saved some Jews!")

Note: This “proposed legislation” is very closely modeled on an actual “pro-life” bill proposed as law in Colorado – HB 10-1261 – by well-meaning (but misled) pro-life legislators.

I have highlighted passages that should shock any moral person – examples of how this law acknowledges and supports the legality of other forms of evil, even while stopping others. Every highlighted passage above – the ones meant to shock a reasonable, moral human being – has its equivalent in the proposed “pro-life” bill, which was meant to enact a “fetal homicide” provision into state law (note that not all fetal homicide or other incremental legislation is compromised - it depends how it's worded).

Please note, specifically, that the part under "definitions" in this law sets an age limit to the law, meaning that even though the law prohibits the murder of Jews above age 16, it specifically does not prohibit murder of Jews of less than 16 years. The actual proposed law in Colorado has equivalent language, basically saying the fetal homicide is not considered fetal homicide before 16 weeks of development, which inherently places less value (i.e. less humanity) upon an unborn child of 15 weeks than is acknowledged for older children. Placing relative value upon one life versus another is inherently wicked -- these lives are seen as equal in God's eyes, and government has no right to determine relative value in contradiction to God's law.

No More Freedom of the Press?

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:26:00 +0000

Unfortunately, much of my "blogging" these days takes place on Facebook (under Ed Hanks), and so it doesn't appear here. But every once in a while a fascinating discussion comes along which deserves to be here too. Here's one about Obama and Freedom of the Press, along with some commentary, and my response.

I then posted a link to an article about how the White House Communications Director was "explaining" (bragging) that Obama's press office "controlled" the media. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347

Now, as a former Speechwriter and Press Secretary, I'm very well aware that this is the ideal goal of any press secretary -- to "control" what the media says about their candidate or official. But I felt this went a step too far.

A man named David Guenthner, a former reporter and longtime PR professional who's currently Director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, responded. I hope he doesn't mind my hijacking his words -- they WERE posted on MY Facebook page, so I feel entitled. Besides, in the thread of comments I ended up agreeing with him, to a large degree, and he posted that he agreed with me. So this is more education than debate, fueled by two PR hands...

David's Comment:

This is much ado about very little. What's discussed as "control" in the headline and the quote is actually message discipline. If you're in a prominent enough position where you have reporters dedicated to covering you (e.g., president or governor), it is your job to put your guy and your story of the day in the news to the greatest extent possible. Limiting access and the number of people authorized to speak on behalf of the administration or the campaign is an appropriate tactic -- and can be effective unless it is overused.

My Response:

David, you're a PR professional, and so you know what you're talking about. I've been a PR professional too, and I understand exactly what you mean, and I agree so far as that goes.

But Obama has crossed a line, and camped out there, where no one before has had the nerve or disregard of press freedom to camp. Clinton did use this tactic to great effect at times, but only for limited projects or periods of time. The press wouldn't let him get away with it. The fact that Helen Thomas (of ALL people!) identified and expressed shock at the Obama Administration's behavior is a sign that it's not business as usual -- not normal political hardball, but a crossing of the Rubicon -- because it's become policy.

Obama's Administration has determined that anyone who doesn't cooperate gets locked out. The press is already half-willing to let this happen. They're addicted. If they don't have that constant hourly news-feed, they can't feed the people. So they're at Obama's mercy, to a point. Obama's feeling his way with this, and if we allow him to get away with it, there is a serious possibility it could morph into a de facto loss of freedom of the press. State control of the mass media, even if there's no way they can control alternative or web media.

But just wait... Obama's reputed to be working on ways to control web media, too! And conservative radio! And if he has those, he's got mass media AND alternative media under state control. Very dangerous, even if it seems "natural" to trained media professionals like you and me who've become inured to hardball politics.

...

Then, David posted this thoughtful link to a Newsbusters story:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2009/10/21/morning-joe-fox-feud-administration-really-playing-rest-media

A great exchange, all around!

EDIT (additional thoughts from me, on this point):

I'm reminded of how things have changed in the Senate, with regard to court appointments.

Time was, the President's nominees to the federal bench, Supreme Court or otherwise, received 100 out of 100 votes. To see otherwise was an exception to the rule.

The way they were to be judged was on the basis of whether they were qualified. Whether or not the senator agreed with the nominee on political issues was NOT to be the basis for determining a yes or no vote. That just wasn't done, as the court was meant to be non-factional and non-partisan (though that was a polite fiction, starting even from the early days of the Republic).

With the most obvious exception of Felix Frankfurter, I believe, in FDR's time, this was the way the Senate operated up until about Pres. Reagan's time (if there are previous signal examples, I'm not aware of them). It was then, with nominees like Bork and Thomas, when the Democrats first inserted political aims into the nomination process, and they've kept it up ever since (and the Republicans have joined in, after the fact, though to hear the media talk the Republicans started it).

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't think the non-partisan process did Republicans any good. Look at O'Connor, and the fact that 90% of GOP appointees to the federal bench are pro-abortion, and not very conservative in any respect. I believe judges should be chosen not because they are "qualified" (i.e. can apply precedent and follow process -- that's a system that has ill served champions of justice and truth), but because they have the courage to choose rightly what will serve justice. But that's beside the point for this discussion.

I mention this example here simply because it's analogous -- this was "standard ethical practice" in government, up until someone was willing to violate the process and insert politics into a supposedly non-political system. Obama has now taken this same step in his relationship to the news media. "Pay to Play" so to speak.

The Lesser of Two Evils

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:42:00 +0000

If someone, say, in Denver (Democrat territory) votes for a Republican, have they "wasted their vote"? That can't be our definition -- voting for someone who has no chance of winning -- or a republic instead becomes a tyranny of the majority. We waste our vote anytime we vote for someone who believes things that we know to be unconscionable, simply because "the other guy" is more unconscionable. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Who Passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:36:00 +0000

In that same issue of the Front Range Rampart, I published a surprising expose' about the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- things that I looked up in the Congressional Record and saw with my own eyes that directly contradicted everything my professors and high school teachers had taught about that legislation!

• In 1964, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, 258-177 in the House, and 67-33 in the Senate. The House passed the Civil Rights Act 290-130, and the Senate passed it 73-27. [I think where I was going here is to prove that at least some Republicans voted for it, since there were more votes than the total number of Democrats -- the next facts, though, emphasize just how FEW of the votes were from Democrats!]

• 48 % – nearly half – of the total votes in favor of the Act in the House were from Republicans

• More than a third of the Democrats voted “no” – a far higher proportion than for Republicans

• Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen was the driving force behind successful passage.

• Approximately 80 % of Republicans in each house voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act

• Approximately 75 % of the total votes against the Civil Rights Act in both houses were cast by Democrats

• Nearly 100 House Democrats voted against the Act

• Some supporters of interest:
Rep. Don Rumsfeld (R-IL)
Rep. Bob Dole (R-KS)
Rep. Gerald Ford (R-MI)
Rep. Robert Taft Jr. (R-OH)
Sen. Gordon Allott (R-CO)
Sen. Peter Dominick (R-CO)

Interview With a Black Republican - Arniter Jamison (2005)

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:53:00 +0000

Today on Facebook, I posted a quote -- part of a pro-life campaign for the month of March. I just placed the quote for today in my "status" on Facebook. And people from both sides (I have alot of conservative and alot of liberal activists as "friends" on Facebook) started bickering about it. It caused a little bit of a firestorm.

The quote was this: Abortion has affected the Black community more than slavery itself. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the Black vote will be insignificant. -Abort73

Now, I thought that was a little strong when I first saw it. But I thought about it. The Right to Life is more important than the Right to Freedom -- without life, you have neither. Black slaves in America had a positive population growth even after the slave trade ended, which means that more Blacks were being born in America than were dying. Considering that 50 million Americans have died since 1967 from abortion, and most of those were Black, it becomes an easy realization -- American Blacks have been more deeply impacted by abortion than by slavery.

So, as part of my response to the firestorm (I'm exaggerating -- most of the feedback was in favor of the quote, from pro-lifers, but some people challenged my right to speak on the issue (that's what liberals do -- I respect your right to state your opinion, but I don't think you should say things like that!)) I'm going to reprint here an interview I published in my newspaper, The Front Range Rampart. By some coincidence, this issue of the newspaper was published exactly 4 years ago -- March 4, 2005.

Arniter Jamison is a longtime friend of mine and my wife's. My wife is Black, and we became members of the Colorado Black Republican Forum (CBRF). Arniter Jamison is a strong woman who once marched in civil rights events with CORE and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and who today pursues the same basic mission of freedom and liberty and equality as Communications Director for the Colorado Black Republican Forum.

Interview: Arniter Jamison

Communications Director, Colorado Black Republicans
(reprinted from the March 4, 2005 edition of the Front Range Rampart)

by Ed Hanks

As a child, Arniter Jamison grew up in the South – a girl with dark skin in a world controlled by whites. But you couldn’t keep her spirit down. She was there, standing up for herself and her people, at diner counters in segregated St. Louis. And today she’s still standing up for herself and her people… as a Republican activist and PR director for the Colorado Black Republicans.

“I believe in the foundational principles of the Republican Party,” she says, “which is a platform for righteousness. I believe that the public policy and platform of the Republican Party offers the best opportunity for my people to overcome the socioeconomic handicaps that have been perpetrated on them over the years. And I believe in the Republican foundational position of creating an environment that develops and allows people to become the best that they can be.”

“That environment, I believe, is best not only for my people but for all American people.”

Jamison’s parents were Republicans, like most blacks were back then. Her mother was a nurse. Her father fought with General Patton’s “Red Ball Express” in World War II, and later in Korea and Vietnam. “My Dad used to explain to his daughter that she was not a Democrat. That there was no way she could be black and be a Democrat!”

But that wasn’t the direction black youth were moving. The popular perception was that Democrats were for the poor people, and for minorities. Jamison says President Roosevelt’s New Deal had begun the change, from 80 or 90 percent black registration as Republicans, to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, which wedded black culture to the Democrats.

“As a child I was a civil rights activist. As a very young, young, young girl, I joined the Congress of Racial Equality which you all call CORE. And I sat in restaurant sit-ins and got thrown out. And I marched in the protest marches.”

“That’s when the blacks switched,” she said. “The younger ones. The older ones still maintained because they understood the history of the relationship between the Republicans and the black community.”

She went on to describe two histories of both political parties, one which is taught as Gospel truth today, and the other which was obscured in her day, and is almost buried today – contradicted by the media and in most history texts and classrooms.

In what Jamison says was not a racist move, but a purely political calculation, some Republicans in the 1960s reached out to southern Democrats – the “Dixiecrats.” It won the Presidency for Richard Nixon in 1968. But she says except for that, the Republican Party has always been the obvious place for African-Americans, though that wasn’t always clear back then. “Democrats did good job of painting all Republicans as racists.”

She added, with obvious bitterness, “The Democrats are very good at using emotional issues to get an emotional response from black people. They use intimidation and fear, which is what they’ve always done, even during the 19th century. They used intimidation and fear to control and intimidate black people.”

Historically, Jamison says Republicans – not Democrats – have been the friend of black Americans. The anti-slavery movement was almost exclusively Republican – was, in fact, a major reason the Party came to exist – and was deeply rooted in the principles of the Party. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, issued the Emancipation Proclamation. “When blacks were freed, they became Republicans.”

Jamison herself graduated from Lincoln University – named after the president – one of many land grant colleges founded by Republicans. “All those colleges and universities were started by white Republicans. Most of them are named after white Republicans, because of the financials and insistence on creating them.”

“Republicans were responsible for Affirmative Action. Republicans were responsible for implementing the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]. Kennedy never implemented it – Nixon did.”

And when, in 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, Jamison says it only happened because of the dogged efforts of Republicans. “It was the Republicans who pushed the law through, and insisted on it. And Democrats fought it.”

Jamison’s claim is contrary to everything students are taught in public school, but it is only necessary to go to the source – the 1964 Congressional Records – to look it up. Some very interesting findings from those records can be found on page 12 [of the Front Range Rampart - posted here - basically, it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act, and most of the votes against it were from Democrat congressmen].

And, while Jamison was emphatic about the helpful nature of the Republican Party in the fight for civil rights, she did not shy away from the dark, largely hidden history of the Democrats – the party that had usually opposed those Republican efforts.

“Most of the intimidation, and the Ku Klux Klan, which was an auxiliary of the Democratic Party – it was a terrorist arm of the Democratic Party – their job was to intimidate Republicans. Period. I know you don’t read about that!” she said. But it is a verifiable fact of history, proven by investigations and primary historical sources, such as the Ku Klux Klan membership oath.

“The blacks who were not Republicans did not receive the intimidation, and they were told, literally that if they’d change and vote Democrat, they’d let them live.”

Today’s Democrat Party is not the same one it was in the 1880s or 1930s, any more than today’s Republican Party is the same as it was in the 1960s. But Jamison says she can still identify vestiges of old Democrat Party thinking. “Now instead of using a rope, instead of physical control, they now use mental and emotional control. They use the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons and the Maxine Waters, and people of that ilk that keep that emotional fear permeating within the black community.”

And, instead of seeing a Democrat Party focused on improving public education, Jamison sees more than just benign neglect in the operation of the public schools liberals have created. She sees a dim reflection of southern Democrat policies prohibiting black children from reading. “Now what they do is they just don’t teach them to read, and it brings about the same result.”

But Jamison’s awareness of the true history of civil rights came only after she began to recognize problems with Democrat philosophy on her own. She remained a Democrat through the ‘60s and ‘70s. In 1976, she worked closely with Wellington Webb on Jimmy Carter’s presidential run. Soon after, she became disenchanted.

Jamison was impressed by Carter’s ideas to require able-bodied welfare recipients to find work or go to school. “I read his welfare program, and it was excellent. And I had sense enough to understand that as black people, we could never be independent as long as we were dependent. And I saw that proposal as an opportunity for uneducated blacks to get an education.”

“They crucified him,” she said. “The Democrats, not the Republicans. The Democrats crucified him because of his welfare reform. A lot of which you see being instituted today [2005] – he was way ahead of his time.”

“When I saw that, and then when the Democrats came up with this philosophy of the disadvantaged, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” she said. “You cannot teach people dependency, inadequacy and failure and expect for them to grow up successful, determined and self-sufficient. And that’s when I started seeing through the Democratic Party, and that’s when I became a Republican.”

She uses a well-known analogy. “You can either feed a man a fish, or you can teach him how to fish. And if you can teach him how to fish, then he becomes an independent, self-sufficient person. The Democrats’ policy is to feed you, so that you become dependent on them. And once you become dependent on a person, then that person becomes your father or your god, take your choice. And when you couple that with a lack of education, or inadequate, incomplete education, then you see how easy it is to control.”

Further, Jamison believes the public school system perpetuates dependency. “They teach children to rely on the government and tell children they have a right to feel good, and take away their bond with parents… de-educating, re-educating, and alienating the children from their parents’ values system.” She sees today’s public schools replacing the parents’ values with atheistic values, which only cements the childrens’ dependence on government and alienation from parents. “That’s why you see children in the streets killing each other, and having babies out of wedlock, and illicit sex.”

Jamison says she had been trusting the mainstream media and educational systems to guide her outlook on life, just as they do for most people. Gradually she came to recognize fundamental problems with liberal thought. “I got it.”

She found protection for all people from dependency and inadequate education in Republican philosophy. “Ronald Reagan was the first Republican candidate that I actually got out and worked for. And I had to fight with all my friends and relatives. Besides my Dad and Mom – they were so happy.”

And she says today’s Democrat Party isn’t recognizable as the party she and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. belonged to when she was young. There was no animosity against Christianity back then. There was a common morality for all Americans. “Even when people did wrong, they knew they were doing wrong. There was a choice… They understood there was a God. When our society lost that, and the Democratic Party embraced the immoral and amoral segment of our society, and began to promote the values of that segment of our society. That’s where it became impossible to be a Democrat anymore.”

Jamison sees a bright future ahead for black Americans, but there is a choice that must be made – a break with the past. “Until black people are allowed to be totally different, and unique and individualistic, we will never be free.”

And to acquire that freedom, Jamison says blacks must unbind themselves from the prejudice of mainstream media culture. She holds out a copy of Black Enterprise. “They don’t talk about the people that you read about in this magazine -- the black people who are extremely successful. We have black people who are heads of major corporations.” She names a few – AOL, Hewlett Packard, American Express, etc. “You don’t hear about the successful black people like Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas. For some reason the culture, the media, have chosen to deify the lowest common denominator.”

And Jamison suggests that Affirmative Action has begun to work against the interests of black Americans. Its original, noble goal was to require that qualified candidates be evaluated on a level playing field. “The Democrats got in control, and they made it a quota system. And that’s where they destroyed it.”

“We have a much higher educated black population, so we have a much better chance of being able to compete for jobs on a fair and equitable basis. We don’t want people looking at us and saying, ‘Oh you just got that job because you were black.’ Who needs that? That’s the stigma.”

What would she most like to see change in the Republican Party? “White Republicans have adopted the definition of what a black person is – the definition that the Democrats have assigned to us… They do not see us [black Republicans] as being distinct and different from the average black Democrat.” Because of this, some Republicans assume black Republicans are more liberal in their outlook. “We’re the most conservative Republicans in the Republican Party!” Jamison says. “We’re pro-gun, we’re anti-abortion, we’re anti-gay marriage, we’re pro-school choice, we are voucher-pro. We also believe in faith-based initiatives. We don’t believe in quota systems for education systems, job systems or anything else. We believe in affirmative recruiting.”

About gun rights, she explains, “During the Reconstruction, and during ‘Jim Crow laws,’ we had the same gun control laws that they’re trying to put in place now, which meant blacks couldn’t own guns. And because blacks could not own guns, when the Ku Klux Klan came to intimidate them, they had no way of defending themselves. So the right to arms is a very strong plank for black Republicans.”

“One of my missions is to encourage, motivate, and revive white Republicans. Because I believe a lot of white Republicans have become ‘at ease in Zion.’ They have become comfortable because they are right. And they think that because they are right, they shouldn’t have to fight. And it’s not true. They’re playing tennis on the 40 yard line, and the Democrats are playing football.”

Summing up her political and philosophical journey, Jamison describes a journey of faith in God and one’s own abilities. “Democrats had a more aggressive plan for bringing equality to all people. I didn’t know that equality meant you’re as equal as I allow you to be. Whereas Republicans say, ‘Hey, Jack. God gave you the same brain he gave me, the same muscles, the same intuition. Just like I get out there and get it for myself, you get out there and get it for yourself. That’s equality.”

Hype - Starring Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:11:00 +0000

Citizens United strikes again - one of my favorite conservative watchdog groups has produced another expose on an enemy of freedom. This time, Barack Obama.

The movie "Hype" is an exhaustive and effective piece of anti-Obama documentary research which is ahead of its time (in that not much research has been done until now!).

I'm pleased and flattered to be able to say that I was able to be present for the "World Premiere" of Hype this Sunday afternoon (the producer admitted he'd never even seen it on the big screen before then)! I must wholeheartedly thank our friend Jill Stanek (pro-life nurse and blogger -- see her incredible story!) for gaining access for me and my wife to see this! Also, thank you to the people who hosted the Premiere, which included Citizens United, and elements of the Colorado Republican Party (officially or not).

Now, first let me say I'm not exactly John McCain's fanboy. In fact, I'm supporting Alan Keyes, rather than stoop so low as to vote for a man who 1) admits on live TV that he believes human life begins at conception, but 2) is still defiantly supporting taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research which will kill already-conceived human beings! Why should conservatives vote for him? Out of fear? Please.

I hesitate to criticize the candidate likely supported by Citizens United, except that I'm not so certain they support him... Check out "Surprisingly Liberal", by Citizens United!

For these reasons and others, I agree with WorldNetDaily.com editor Joseph Farah, who believes McCain may be a greater danger to the conservative movement than Barack Obama. Obama could be the Clinton or the Carter of the day, who is unable to accomplish the worst of his agenda, all the while energizing the conservative base to put up a Reaganesque figure to oppose him in four years.

But that's beside the point -- back to the review...

The movie made light of Obama's "rock star" qualities -- his embarrassing celebrity popularity, upon which he's ridden much of his way along the path to the Democrat nomination for president. One laugh line in the show was a clip of Stephen Colbert telling Larry King about the power of Obama's passing the "Hope Bong" around.

But Hype was more than mere hype, itself. It mixed studious and damning research with a parade of white and Black conservative leaders explaining who Obama is, and analyzing where he's "coming from," both as a Black man and a socialist-leaning hyper-liberal. Featured guests included Jill Stanek, who told about her experience with Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (he was the only Democrat in the whole Illinois State Senate to oppose it, and even Hillary Clinton, Ed Kennedy and Barbara Boxer voted for it in the US Senate!). Other figures we know and respect include Ken Blackwell, Shelby Steele, Dick Morris and Jerome Corsi among many others.

The movie hit many points. Obama is an elitist, who lives in a million-dollar mansion. He sounds like he's for the little guy, and for reform, but his record is just the opposite. He's in the pocket of liberal special interests. He's a lazy dilettante who would rather make political points than get the job done. In other words, he's a typical politician. Ho hum -- good information, but nothing new.

But then it gets into the more exciting points which might surprise many Democrats and Republicans alike!

Foreign policy, of course, is key in this day and age. Biden can't hide this man's deficiencies on this. The movie pointed out Obama's gaffes, such as Katie Couric making him look like a fool for refusing to support the "Surge" in Iraq even after it proved its worth (if Obama can make Couric look like a pro-war heckler...). Obama's statements that he would meet with all America's most hateful enemies were foolish, which seems even more clear after they deconstruct his excuse that Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did the same thing (the movie examines how each of the cited presidential summits were of entirely a different character than what Obama proposes, and reminds us that Kennedy admitted Khrushchev "manhandled" him because he wasn't prepared for their meeting!).

And we all know about Obama's connections with some of the wide-eyed radicals of the anti-American, anti-white, anti-Christian religious sectors: Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Fleger, Louis Farrakhan, etc. Not new news, but startling, nonetheless, for a "mainstream" presidential candidate! The movie details these connections, and Obama's hypocrisy.

But perhaps more shocking were some of the associations Obama has had over the years. He's hired a known corruption figure to do his fundraising, whose dirty career even landed him in jail. Bill Ayers is apparently a close associate of Obama's who once upon a time worked with the anarchist Weather Underground (the "Weathermen") terrorist group. There are other connections which a wise politician would have carefully avoided, but Obama's ties to them are clear, and he even seems to have a hard time admitting they're not ordinary.

But we've dealt with corrupt politicians before. What sets Obama apart from, say, Bill Clinton (yes, even Bill Clinton!) is the extremity of his politics and the passion with which he pursues! The movie explains one of his early jobs was as a radical grassroots organizer, and how he used radical, socialistic and even anarchist handbooks on which to model his early political efforts. He's unapologetically followed some of the most ridiculously anti-freedom trains of thought in American politics, and many of his Democrat colleagues rightly think him crazy, and left-of-left.

The worst of the examples given is the one we started with. Obama's unwillingness to compromise on his support for abortion even so far as to allow a living human baby to live! Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act represents a horrifying belief that the abortionist should be allowed to chase an innocent human baby around on the operating table with a knife!!!

Obama tries to cover for his sins, and even to use faux-Christian gestures to fool evangelicals and mainstreamers into supporting him. But he is no "mean" (average) politician. He is a dangerous anti-American socialist who would try to impose the most sweeping anti-Freedom measures we've ever seen proposed. A frightening man, to be sure. And that's even without delving into conspiracy theories.

This movie, Hype, is worth seeing, and worth showing your friends! It's long, but that's because there's lots to say. We do not want this man as our next president. It would be a disaster. But still....

Is that reason enough to "vote for the lesser of two evils" -- for the least worse of two possible disasters? My feeling -- No. For lots of reasons.

Cast a principled vote which will empower the conservative movement by sending a message to future parties and future leaders. Otherwise we are just asking to be ignored.

Watch the movie, though! Be not fearful, but be informed!

A Time for Choosing

noreply@blogger.com (Coloconservative) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:21:00 +0000

A discussion in another forum brought me to seek out and listen to Ronald Reagan's 1964 speech A Time For Choosing: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4770988975023965161&q=%22A+time+for+choosing%22&total=6&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

It was Reagan's attempt to put a burner under Goldwater's lead balloon of a campaign. Goldwater clearly deserved to do better, but it wasn't within his capabilities to really demonstrate that to anyone. Reagan had the skills to tickle peoples' minds, though, and here, and in many later years, we got to see him put these very themes to work -- themes espoused by few other visionaries than Goldwater and Reagan.

If you've never watched or listened to the speech, it's definitely worth hearing how clear his thinking was, even back then. If you skip the first couple of minutes, you'll miss Reagan's railing against Johnson for his national debt! The one, brief, and unfortunately ironic uncomfortable spot.

I'd be curious to hear what you think!

Ed