Pro-Life

SCOTUS: Barrett Confirmed

Posted on by Amir

As I expected, on Monday night the Senate confirmed federal judge Amy Coney Barrett as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

For those keeping the tallies, we now have six Republican-appointed Justices–Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts–and three Democrat appointees: Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

Of the six Republican appointees, Roberts appears to be wobbly while Kavanaugh has been mostly conservative with some centrist leanings; Barrett, of course, is untested. The other three–Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch–have been conservative.

However, as I said before, whether this means Roe v. Wade is dead, that’s different ballgame.

Without Barrett, it is doubtful that SCOTUS would even take a challenge to Roe. And even if they do, Barrett–while having all the markers of a hard-Catholic conservative in the tradition of Scalia–is not a guaranteed anti-Roe vote. She does have a history of showing respect for precedent. It will take a very strong legal case to go against a precedent that has been in place for nearly 50 years and has been bolstered by one direct case (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and many peripheral cases.

Having said that, Barrett–at least on paper–is a worthy pick for SCOTUS. If she won’t kill Roe, then Roe will be with us for at least another 50 years, assuming the country does not break up.

As for the upcoming election, it’s anyone’s guess. On one hand, every national poll is showing Biden with a commanding lead, even in “battleground” states that Trump won 4 years ago. On the other hand, we have Vox Day–who predicted that Trump would be a force years before he even entered the 2016 race–predicting that Trump will win the popular vote AND the electoral vote.

4 years ago, I voted against Trump in the primary, but held my nose and voted for him in the general election. My reasons:

  • Court picks. I trusted Trump to make better court picks than Hillary. And I’m not just talking about SCOTUS. On this front, I feel vindicated.
  • Appointments to other government Departments and agencies. I remember how Clinton and Obama used the IRS and FBI to target their political rivals. Egregious abuses of power were never punished. Filegate, anyone? Lois Learner, anyone? Disk drives destroyed, anyone?
  • Hillary was set to use the apparatus of government to expand public indoctrination in critical race theory and intersectionality. And those are increasingly being used as tools to weed out “troublemakers”.
  • In the wake of Obergefell, Christian-owned businesses became targets of Big Gay. Under Hillary, those attacks were set to intensify. What gays want to do in their privacy is one thing, but forcing business owners to recognize gay “weddings” is a different thing.
  • Those of us who remember Hillary’s attempt to hijack the health care system when her husband was President, understood her objective to use ObamaCare as a stepping stone to socialized medicine.

As I said, I would have taken a shotgun blast to the balls before voting for Hillary. I do not regret my vote.

Am I a MAGA? Not by a long shot, although I will concede that Trump has delivered on the key reasons I voted for him. I will definitely NOT vote for Biden. My state is arguably the most pro-Trump state in the union.

What do I think will happen? I don’t know. My gut says this is going to be a LOT closer than anyone thinks. Are the polls so far off that Trump wins? I don’t know. Could he win the popular vote, too? I don’t know. But then again, it’s all about turnout.

I WILL say this much:

In 2016, we supported Rand Paul, a very popular Senator. But by the time the Kentucky Caucus arrived, Rand–polling in single-digits against Trump–had suspended his campaign. Trump was a juggernaut. While there were many Trump bumper stickers that year, we didn’t see many Trunp yard signs.

This year, it’s a different ballgame. At least half the yards in my development have Trump yard signs and there are many Trump flags flying. One flag in my walking route says “TRUMP No More Bullshit”. There are a LOT of angry voters who are extending both middle fingers to the establishment.

In the part of Michigan where MrsLarijani hails, we noticed many Trump signs. Does this mean that Michigan could once again go to Trump? I don’t know. But outside of Detroit, Michigan is a completely different state.

In June, we visited Colorado on family-related business. While we were there, we took #toddler to a very nice park so she could play. There were a lot of families doing the same thing. I saw a lot of angry folks, and let’s just say they were not Antifa. These folks were conservative.

(While Colorado will almost certainly go to Biden, it is entirely likely that what I saw was an indicator of the anger in Middle America.)

I can also tell you that much of Pennsylvania is angry. The shutdowns by the Democrat governor–and the riots in a Democrat-controlled Philadelphia–have made a reliable blue state very much a bubble state. Trump took Pennsylvania in 2016.

Is what I’m telling you an indicator of what is going on nationally? I don’t know that answer. But like I said, my gut tells me the endgame is going to be surprising. Trump could win if the level of energy I’m seeing on the ground is any indication and assuming we don’t get widespread fraud.

If Trump takes Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio–and at least one mainstay state (Pennsylvania or MI or Wisconsin and Iowa), this Tuesday will be very good for him.

And from what I’m seeing, that outcome is not out of the realm of possibilities.

SCOTUS, Roe, State of the Union, Where We’re Going

Posted on by Amir

Background

In 1992, Then-Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR) was running as a Democrat against incumbent President George H.W. Bush for the Presidency.

At the time, we were in a short-lived recession that mainstream media was making out to be much worse than it was. Clinton was hailed as an economic savior who promised middle class tax cuts whereas Bush was cast as an aloof, uncaring rich man who couldn’t be trusted, as he broke his “Read My Lips, No New Taxes” pledge.

Socially, Clinton was very liberal–pro-abortion, pro-gay rights–and his wife was a very radical feminist who promised to be prominent in her husband’s administration and was rumored to have Presidential aspirations of her own.

But any attempts to hit Bill on that, or his extramarital affairs, or his wife’s radical views, were met with, “The economy, stupid!”

Character didn’t matter. All that mattered was The Economy, Stupid.

Meanwhile, as the media insisted that the incumbent Bush promise NOT to use Roe v. Wade as a “litmus test” for Supreme Court (SCOTUS) picks, Clinton promised to do exactly that. And no one in the gaslighting corps of Mainstream Media bothered to call him on that.

Complicating matters, that year SCOTUS decided the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, which was the first major challenge to Roe v. Wade.

At the time, Roe appeared to be in trouble.

The Court had four sure-fire votes against Roe: William Rehnquist and Byron White (the two dissenting votes against Roe in 1973), and Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, up to that point, had proven to be reliable conservatives. And Sandra Day O’Connor was thought to be leaning toward shooting down Roe. A 7-2 vote to kill Roe was not out of the realm of possibilities.

Instead, O’Connor could not get herself to overturn Roe. Kennedy and Souter joined her, turning a 7-2 vote to kill Roe into a 5-4 vote to keep it.

While this alarmed the pro-life stalwarts, they were drowned out by all debates about The Economy, Stupid.

I know this because, at the time, I was President of a county Right to Life chapter. I was also on the board for a maternity home and a counselor at a crisis pregnancy center. (Those were in addition to my day job as a systems engineer at a GM account.)

I worked hard to warn folks that a Clinton victory would result in liberal SCOTUS picks that would set us FARTHER back. The 1992 winner was all but guaranteed to get two SCOTUS picks.

That’s exactly what happened.

That November, Clinton won the 1992 election. While he only carried 43% of the popular vote, he gained plenty enough electoral votes. And Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate. My state went to Bush, but my district was very “blue”: GM workers–mostly UAW workers–provided that margin.

As I predicted, it didn’t take long for Clinton to get a SCOTUS opportunity. In fact, he got two of them:

  • 1993: Byron White (one of two dissenters in Roe) retired, and Clinton subsequently picked Ruth Bader Ginsburg to fill that slot.
  • 1994: Harry Blackmun (the architect of Roe) retired, and Clinton picked Stephen Breyer to fill that slot.

Elections have consequences.

To be honest, I expected Ruth Bader Ginsburg to live to age 150.

Ideologies aside, she was a badass: a total fitness nut. And while she was a reviled figure among conservatives, I often point out that, by the time she arrived at SCOTUS in 1993, all of the major abortion decisions had been made: Roe v. Wade (1973); Doe v. Bolton (1973); Planned Parenthood v. Akron, Ohio (1976); and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

RBG was appointed by President Clinton, who–while campaigning in 1992–promised to use support of Roe as a litmus test for his SCOTUS picks. And he won.

So, while I was at odds with RBG and Breyer, I have no issues with them being on the Court.

I’ll say it again: elections have consequences.

That is why I could not vote for Clinton in 1996 or Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 or Obama in 2008 or 2012. During that time, Obama replaced two center-right picks (Souter and O’Connor) with two very left picks (Kagan and Sotomayor).

In 2016, Donald Trump–a longtime abortion advocate–embraced the pro-life cause in his pursuit of the White House. Many of us–myself and MrsLarijani included–doubted his sincerity on this issue. We felt he was pandering for votes. This is why we both voted against him in the Kentucky primary.

Complicating the race, Antonin Scalia–one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court, and a Reagan appointee–died. President Obama–who already had two picks (Sotomayor and Kagan)–subsequently nominated Merrick Garland to fill that slot.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) decided to delay the confirmation vote until after the election, effectively making the Presidential election a referendum on SCOTUS.

From my vantage point? While I loathed Trump, I loathed Hillary even more. On the sexual abuse issue, I considered it a wash: Trump was the face of P*ssygate whereas Hillary built her political career on the backs of her husband’s victims.

I remembered the debacle of 1992: while Bush was uninspiring, I would have trusted his SCOTUS picks over anyone Bill Clinton was set to nominate. I also remembered the radicals that the Clintons appointed to the apparatus of government, Donna Shalala and Janet Reno being at the top of the list. I remembered FileGate: it stood out as proof that the Clintons were not above using the apparatus of government to harass their political opponents, thus bringing back the era of “Black Bag” jobs.

While I had no special affinity for Trump, I would have taken a shotgun blast to the balls before voting for Hillary.

I decided that #NeverTrump == #HillaryWins.

And so I held my nose and voted for Trump. It’s a vote I do not regret.

Again, elections have consequences.

Because Trump won, instead of Merrick Garland (a hard liberal) we ended up with Neil Gorsuch, a generally-reliable conservative.

In 2018, when Anthony Kennedy retired, Trump picked Brett Kavanaugh. While Kavanaugh would not have been my choice–I was hoping for Amy Coney Barrett–I would trust him more than any pick Hillary would have made.

Am I in the MAGA camp? Not by a long shot. What I CAN tell you: I’ll take him over Hillary Clinton 10 times out of 10.

But here we are, less than 3 weeks away from the 2020 election. Trump has had three SCOTUS picks: Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett (pending). Barring a last-minute snag, Barrett will be confirmed.

But let’s assume we get Barrett.

That leaves us with a SCOTUS lineup that features SIX Republican appointees: Clarence Thomas (Bush I), Samuel Alito (Bush II), John Roberts (Bush II), Neil Gorsuch (Trump), Brett Kavanaugh (Trump), and Amy Coney Barrett (Trump) and three Democrat appointees: Stephen Breyer (Clinton), Elena Kagan (Obama), and Sonia Sotomayor (Obama).

Some pro-life enthusiasts are licking their chops, thinking that if all six of those BushI/Bush II/Trump appointees vote to kill Roe, it’s a 6-3 vote and Roe is dead.

Some have hung their hat on Amy Coney Barrett as the savior of the unborn. I do not share their confidence.

While, at face value, ACB seems to be an excellent pick, I am not holding my breath in expectation of Roe going down. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Like I said, I remember 1992. It’s very easy for armchair quarterbacks to say how easy it is to kill Roe. Trust me: even if you’re a die-harder, it won’t be easy.

You and I don’t face death threats for being pro-life. You and I won’t have our kids targeted because we’re pro-life. ACB will have a bounty on her head. Her husband will have a bounty on his head. All seven of their kids will have bounties on their heads.

If ACB kills Roe–and I hope she does–then her courage will outshine the late, great Col. John Ripley (USMC).

Also, you need to remember that the chances of Roe going down will depend on the quality of the cases presented by the Attorneys General of the states who will challenge Roe. One of the reasons we ended up with Roe: the crew in the anti-abortion side didn’t care, and put up a tepid defense.

And all it takes for Roe to stand is two of those “right-leaning” Justices to get too cute by half–appealing to “international law”, catering to multiple whataboutisms, deciding that precedent has made any challenge insurmountable. And if that happens, then Roe will live by at least a 5-4 vote. Combined with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, stare decisis will make future challenges very difficult if not unlikely.

If that happens, mark my words:

  • Barring a breakup of the country altogether, Roe will not go down in our lifetimes. Abortion will be a modern “high place” that not even a “good” ruler can take down.
  • It will be the end of the GOP. Pro-life conservatives will have no more incentive to vote Republican. That will have major implications for a variety of issues, both local and national.
  • The acceleration to Civil War II will intensify.
  • The fight within the Church on this issue will also intensify.

If Roe DOES go down, then what happens next will depend on the scope of the reversal.

  • If SCOTUS merely punts the issue back to the states, then not much will change except in states that are pro-life at least marginally (mostly “red” states). “Blue” states will see no change. (I mean seriously: do you honestly think New York or California–the most baby-killing states in the union–are going to lift a finger to ban abortion?)
  • If SCOTUS declares children in utero to have 14th Amendment protections as persons, then all Hell will break loose. A breakup of the union is entirely possible. If Dems control the House, Senate, and White House, then you’ll see an attempt at a federal law (a) codifying abortion rights and (b) precluding the federal courts from addressing the issue. If the Senate has a filibuster-proof majority, this is very much a possibility.

As for where the country is heading, that’s a different ballgame.

In the wake of the Civil War, President Lincoln once suggested that the bloodshed in the war was God’s demanded price of America for slavery. Ann Coulter, remarking about that, wondered what the price would be for abortion.

While I do not want to get into the game of blaming this or that catastrophe on abortion or [fill in the blank with your pet peeve sin], I’m going to posit some principles from Scripture:

  • The shedding of blood always carries a price.
  • There will always be a reckoning for that bloodshed.

In Genesis, Cain became the first murderer, killing his brother Abel. A few generations later, we have Lamech, committing two murders and bragging about it to his two wives. By the time we get to Genesis 6, the violence was so bad that it was one of the motivating factors for the Flood. After the flood, as God established a new covenant with Noah, He said:

Whoever sheds man’s blood,

By man his blood shall be shed,

For in the image of God

He made man.

Genesis 9:6

When God handed the Law to Moses, the Law was emphatic about bloodshed: wanton killing (murder) was punishable by death, and even unintentional killing (manslaughter) carried a price: one had to flee to a city of refuge.

The principle: homicide always carries a price.

When you look at the lives of people who had a lot of blood on their hands–including the good guys such as David–the bloodshed had an effect on them. (I posit that it made David cavalier in his dealing with Uriah when faced with his impregnation of Uriah’s wife.)

Why do I say this? homicide always carries a price. Even justifiable homicide is still homicide. Anyone who is cavalier about killing people–even people who deserve it–doesn’t know Scripture well. Jehu killed off a lot of bad people, but even his mass bloodshed was condemned by God through the prophet Hosea.

Even worse, when nations enshrine mass bloodshed, there is always a reckoning. And nothing says “enshrine mass bloodshed” like legalized, subsidized abortion.

Now keep in mind, I’m not piling onto women who’ve had abortions, as I’m not referring to individual baggages.

Oh noes, I’m referring to the establishments that have enshrined abortion. On top of government, you have the players who gave us the Sexual Revolution, feminism, progressivist elements with big academic and corporate ties and monetary incentive to profit from abortion here and abroad (Planned Parenthood), and even religious groups that either (a) support abortion or (b) whose opposition to it barely rose to the level of rhetorical.

The apparatus that clings to abortion rights is much like the apparatus that clung to slavery, and the arguments from the pro-slavery side were almost identical to those coming from the pro-aborts.

But just as the 250 years of enshrined, institutionalized human trafficking that was American slavery came with a price, the almost 50 years of enshrined, institutionalized abortion–which has claimed at least 60 million–will not come without a price.

What that price will be is anyone’s guess. But if you look at how destabilized the United States has become, I’d say we are getting a glimpse of what that price could be.

My prediction: we are heading for a catastrophic division that will make the Civil War pale in comparison. If we’re lucky, we’ll have a soft breakup of the country.

The worst part: we are on the front end of a post-Christian generation. As the Church continues its decline, Christendom will also decline. And while many will call that a good thing–as Christendom had many hypocrisies and inconsistencies–the downside is that, for all its faults, Christendom helped put the Civilization in Western Civilization.

My take: we are heading toward an era of barbarism, and real persecution of Christians will become reality in America within the next 20 years.

Is institutional, legalized abortion the only cause of this? Not hardly. I would suggest that it’s a number of factors. But 60 million dead, that’s got a Hell of a price. That alone should cause all of us to shudder.

Reflecting on the destruction of Russia by Communists, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn had this to say:

Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

Think long and hard about what happened to Russia.

What was once a hub for a major sector of Christianity was hijacked by radical, militant atheist government for 70 years. The persecution against Christians was severe: Orthodox priests were shot, skinned alive, boiled alive, fed into furnaces, frozen to death, and had their innards fed to rodents. The Red Terror alone claimed over a million Russian lives. The Church in Russia was a major recipient of the reprisals.

Don’t think for one second that it can’t happen here.

While I would hesitate to say that America was ever a Christian nation, we have been a nation with a Christian consensus. But that consensus is waning, and hostility to Christendom is rising.

Make no mistake: the nearly 50 years of institutionalized, enshrined mass bloodshed will have a price.

Minus Great Awakening III, the trajectory in the United States is dire.

Pro-Life: Adjusting My Focus to Be More Congruent With My Views

Posted on by Amir

First, some opening clarifications:

(1) My position on abortion remains unchanged: I support a full reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. I oppose abortion except for cases of danger to the woman’s life.

(2) Supporting the continued legalization of abortion is not a pro-life position. (After all, even though laws prohibiting rape do little to stop its occurrence–and even though we do a crummy job pursuing such cases–we would not consider the de-criminalization of rape to be “pro-woman”.)

(3) All parties in the abortion–unless the one receiving the abortion is under coercion (which happens: ask me how I know)–are culpable. That goes for the “physicians” and “nurses” who perform them (to whom I assign majority blame), the woman who consents to have that done to her, and the sperm-donating jackwad who passive-aggressively (or in some cases just plain aggressively) pushes for the abortion.

(4) While I do consider the woman proportionately culpable, I do empathize with her on several levels:

  • She is under great pressure to go this route by an abortion-industrial complex that markets the practice with great expertise.
  • She often gets little or no support from her boyfriend (in some cases husband). Sometimes, the latter will put great pressure on her to do this.

But that does beg the questions:

(1) How do I view women who have had abortions?

(2) What do I believe society needs to do to parties complicit in abortions in the event that Roe and Doe are overturned and abortion becomes criminalized?

What necessitates this post? In an ongoing dialogue I’ve had with a very good friend of mine, it’s gone sort of like this:

Her: If Abigail got pregnant unexpectedly, out of wedlock – have you considered how you would respond?

Me: That’s a grandbaby, even if it’s not the ideal way I would have hoped.

Her: What if she chose to abort?

Me: I’d be heartbroken.

Her: She would be, too.

(No, I will not let you pound on her. She is a friend of mine, and is pro-life.)

On the other hand, from time to time I review my prior posts on certain topics. And upon reviewing my pro-life-related posts, quite frankly, I’m disturbed at some of my own commentary.

First off, I’m going to tell you a bit about my journey in the pro-life cause, as it is atypical for a guy.

Let me explain…

I’ve been pro-life ever since I knew what abortion was. It always seemed a no-brainer to me. It was like, “Duh…everyone knows that’s a baby!”

As a teen, I often listened to preachers on the radio who reflected my views. And from everything I saw in Scripture, there was no case for a contrarian view. So I was always a pro-life supporter on this matter.

But when did I enlist in the pro-life cause?

That came in my final semester at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. I was a member at FBC Daytona Beach. The wife of my Sunday School teacher–NM–gave her testimony one January morning. She’d had two abortions, the first being in 1973.

NM described her lifestyle at the time, and also the way abortion was sold to her, although she did not minimize her own guilt. Her testimony was that of someone truly broken over what she had done. I felt awful for her. I remember walking up to NM and giving her a hug after class.

She wanted folks on her side. I was already there–as my politics were always pro-life–but NM had recruited me to The Cause.

After I graduated, I became involved in The Cause on several fronts: I was a chapter president of Right to Life; I became a speaking director for a maternity home; and I got recruited–by a woman who’d had a prior abortion–to be a counselor at a crisis pregnancy center. (Back then, they let men do that.)

So for 3 years, I wore all 3 hats, but most of my work involved counseling clients at the CPC. During that time, I was the most active volunteer: I had about 500 clients. Most of them were just there for the free pregnancy test and the WIC/Medicaid/IPO referrals, some were abortion-minded, and–yes–some were post-abortive.

How did I treat the latter?

Well…I didn’t give them hugs, but that was only because I was in a counselor role. But I did empathize.

Having studied as much as I could on the subject–and having been mentored by a counselor who was herself post-abortive–I handled those cases with grace that was not simply trained, but also heartfelt. I felt for them the way I felt for NM.

During my time at that crisis pregnancy center, one of my teammates–TC–befriended me. She was post-abortive. We often counseled clients as a team–we were usually on the same shift–with her in the room with me. TC and I were BFFs. She was married, and her marriage was rocky: he was abusive, and she sometimes took it out on me at the CPC (sometimes to the concern of other volunteers). But we always walked away friends (to the surprise of those same concerned volunteers). When I moved to start my seminary studies, TC wept.

In my 3 years, a grand total of zero of my post-abortive clients said they’d do it again. One of them–my favorite client ever–summing up her sentiments on the issue, put it succinctly: “Oh fuck no!”

In my professional life, I’ve met only one person who is happy about her prior abortion, and she’s an atheist.

What I’m getting at: while I have always been pro-life in my worldview, my enlistment in The Cause–and the bulk of my work in The Cause–was driven by empathy for post-abortive women. Heck, they were the ones who recruited me!

How do I view post-abortive women from a theological standpoint?

Do I view them as murderers? Do I view them as victims? Do I view them as proportionately culpable in a murder?

The long answer:

(1) some of them are indeed full-on murderers;

(2) most of them are partial victims to a government-murder complex that markets what amounts to murder with the greatest New York sloganeering;

(3) most of them are proportionately culpable to some extent.

I put the majority blame on the government-industrial complex (which includes “physicians” and “nurses” who perform abortions) for making this hideous act appealing and easy.

May that entire complex rot in Hell.

I also put proportional culpability on most of the men involved in the pregnancies.

Of the men: some are innocent–the women abort against the wishes of the fathers (ask me how I know this)–but let’s be honest here: if you’re a man and you want the easy sex and you don’t care about anything but getting your own pleasure in life, then abortion is the mother of all “Get Out of Jail Free” cards. And many men have called in that card.

Hear this: if you are a man who got a woman pregnant and you actively–or passively by neglect–pushed her in that direction, then you also have proportional culpability.

And yes, I do believe that the woman receiving the abortion–unless she is under coercion–has proportional culpability. There is no pretty way to spin that.

(What complicates all of this? Keep in mind that with most forms of murder, we tend to legislate and punish it. But with abortion, government actually subsidizes the practice and even its marketing. So I would not put all post-abortive women and the men in, say, the same league with convicted first-degree murderers. There is a world of difference.)

How do I believe this should be handled legally? Like I said: let states handle this status quo ante; i.e., enforce it the way we did prior to Roe v. Wade. Some states will let it go on unabated; other states will have tighter restrictions.

Before Roe, states weren’t investigating miscarriages and in fact prosecuted illegal abortionists as they surfaced. I’m for doing that. I’m also for educating women and men regarding the responsibilities that come with sex.

Now how do I view post-abortive women from a personal or theological standpoint?

I’ll just state it up front: if you’re post-abortive and tell me, you’re more likely to get a hug from me than you are to get any form of condemnation.

I’m all for God’s grace and forgiveness, and I believe the Church ought to be a fountain for said grace. From the time in 1990 when I listened to NM until now, that has been and remains my view.

If you have any heart for the things of God and have an abortion–and yes, women will do this, just as King David did with Uriah–then the guilt is going to be crushing as all get-out, and you probably are going to need counseling, probably from a real therapist.

David lamented in Psalm 51: “my sin is ever before me.” Even as God took his sin away, he was a broken man. His conduct for the duration of his life reflects that.

As a member of that Body, I see it as my responsibility to be a conduit for that grace.

On the other hand, I can look at my prior commentary on this matter and conclude that I fell way short of the glory in that department.

In closing, I apologize for many of my prior comments on this issue and other issues. My motives were knee-jerk anger and I make no excuse for it. I accept that I did not extend grace as I should have.

I considered taking my blog down completely, but decided against it.

Why will I keep it up?

I will let the record show what I was then and am today: good, bad, and ugly (hopefully not in that order), but hopefully increasingly refined in God’s proverbial crucible.

“The More You Love, The Harder You Fight”, A Review of What is A Girl Worth? by Rachael Denhollander

Posted on by Amir

I remember the trial of Dr. Larry Nassar, a Michigan State University physician who was once the Gold Standard in the gymnastics community. For decades, he molested hundreds of girls and women, playing the part of the compassionate nice-guy who helped them heal from their injuries.

At the end of the trial, he finally buckled and pled guilty. As part of his plea deal, every one of his victims was permitted to give an impact statement. Up until that point, I had followed the trial loosely. But I paid special attention to the victims and what they had to say.

One by one, Nassar’s victims brought his world down with thunderous dunks that would make Julius Erving proud. It was glorious.

Enter Rachael Denhollander, who closed it out with both a blistering assessment of the culture that allowed Nassar to operate for years, and a wonderful Gospel presentation to Nassar. (If you haven’t heard Rachael’s speech, Google it and watch it. It’s pure gold.)

I became a Rachael Denhollander fan that day.

What’s a Girl Worth? is her story. And it is both riveting and inspiring.

First, a trigger warning: if you suffer from any form of PTSD, this book is going to hurt. Even if you don’t suffer from PTSD, this book is going to hurt. If you have any form of empathy whatsoever, this book is going to hurt.

She describes her assaults by Nassar in significant detail. I tried hard to keep my analytical hat on, but I still couldn’t sleep that night. On the other hand, I found it very instructive, as she is showing parents how easy it is for a predator to abuse kids. Nassar abused many of his victims in plain sight, with their parents only feet away!

There is a popular misconception that you can spot child molesters pretty easily, and if you are just careful enough, you can prevent their abuses or catch them in the act. Rachael destroys that myth almost immediately. Rachael’s mother—who was a protective, caring Christian mom—was in the same room when Nassar abused her. She never saw it happen, as Nassar was smooth enough to conceal her view.

In great detail, she points out the factors that kept her from reporting her abuse, the blowback she received when she tried to report her abuse, the effects the abuse had on her for many years, and how it challenged her relationships and even her faith.

When people ask victims, “Why didn’t you report [the abuser] sooner?” Rachael gives a vivid, well-reasoned answer to that question. Even when victims do report, very little is ever done. Police departments often shelve the complaints, as thousands of rape kits remain untested even today.

If the accused is a respected figure like Nassar, he probably has friends in law enforcement. Nassar almost got away with his crimes, as the county prosecutor attempted to cut an easy deal like Jeffrey Epstein once received. Thankfully, the Michigan State Police—with the help of a very hardworking, caring detective—had the resolve to tell the county prosecutor to go pound sand, and hand this to a very victim-friendly Attorney General, who went after Larry with every weapon in the arsenal.

And then there’s the personal cost of reporting your abuser. Her entire life was laid bare for the whole world to see. The details of her molestation became public record. Because she testified against Nassar, his team was able to pry into the most intimate details of her life, including her personal journals.

Nassar abused many victims because the system protected him at the expense of victims. That system included a Big 10 university, local law enforcement, and the larger athletics community that included USA Gymnastics. Rachael provides a devastating picture—with the clarity of the best LED television screen—of that abuser-friendly system which protected Nassar for years. Had it not been for the reporters at IndyStar—to whom Rachael appealed with her story about Nassar—he might still be abusing women today.

But Rachael took him on, even ditching her anonymity. What drove her: her concern for the other victims. As she said it, “the more you love, the harder you fight.”

Sadly, our society doesn’t really love, as we have commoditized people while lionizing ideas and institutions. USA Gymnastics turned a blind eye to abusive coaches like John Geddert, just as Penn State turned a blind eye to Jerry Sandusky, just as Michigan State turned a blind eye to Larry Nassar, just as churches turn a blind eye to abusive pastors, priests, and other leaders.

From conception, children are commodities. Even pro-life denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Independent Fundamental Baptists have thrown children under the bus to protect abusive pastors and highly-revered leaders.

Against that backdrop, Rachael Denhollander drops a badly-needed FULL STOP.

For the Christian, What’s A Girl Worth? is very sobering, as the Church does not get off the hook here. For speaking out about the abuse coverups at Covenant Life Church by C.J. Mahaney—which put her at odds with her elders, who were friends of Mahaney—she was ostracized and her family would have to move on to another church. (This at a time when they needed the support of a church body.)

Having been around the block in church circles, I can attest that taking on abusers in the Church is not a popular endeavor. If you are a minister, there is a lot of pressure not to rock the boat. There is a lot of pressure to handle matters quietly—let the abuser resign, move on, get a fresh start somewhere else—and avoid the unpleasant consequences of making the brutal truth of abuse a public matter. As a rookie youth minister, I took on an abusive pastor. I won, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. I’d do it again, but still…there is a price to pay.

But the Church needs to pay that price, because people are worth more than institutions. Make no mistake: this is a Gospel issue. Jesus held a child and told the Disciples that “the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

The pastorate is for real shepherds, not hired guns seeking to enrich themselves. The pastorate is not a corporate ladder, and until the Church decides that people—especially victims—are not commodities, she will continue to slouch toward irrelevance.

As Rachael said it, “the more you love, the harder you fight.” The Church needs to repent and start fighting like the third monkey on the ramp to Noah’s ark.

And for the men who are new to this fight, Rachael’s husband—Jacob—provides a great primer in how that is done. From the days before they even got engaged, to the runup to their wedding, and throughout their marriage, Jacob was a great listener, a hard worker, and a wonderful supporter of his wife. As life got turbulent, they still had children—4 of them—and Jacob provided great strength to ensure that their home was a refuge from a very nasty world. They endured great hardship, but came out stronger, and Jacob was a major part of that. Men, this is why you need to read the book.

Ultimately, the Denhollander family provides a portrait of the kind of love that defends, protects, advocates, and goes to the end of the world, for “the least of these”. On a scale of 1 to 10, no less than 20.

Kavanaugh: Who Didn’t See This?

Posted on by Amir

Last year, as Brett Kavanaugh seemed headed toward certain confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, Christine Blasey Ford, a former high school classmate of Kavanaugh’s–came forward and accused him of sexually assaulting her at a party.

Immediately, I was skeptical. Kavanaugh denied not only the assault, but even being at the same party with her. That was a pretty hard denial, as all it would have taken to sink him would have been for someone to corroborate that he was at the same party with Ford.

Not even one of her friends could do that.

During her testimony, she insisted that she had no political motive. But the way she did that told me she was full of it. MrsLarijani also felt this was BS.

In a conversation with someone who was centrist, here is what I said at the time. She asked me what I do to protect women, so I gave her a complete answer.

I promised I’d get back to you on this. So…what do I do on behalf of women regarding their mistreatment? First off, I don’t limit myself to the mere mistreatment of women. I’m opposed to all abusers, and I act in my spheres of influence on behalf of those impacted by them.

I’ve encouraged victims to take appropriate action against their bosses. I’ve helped one of them record a meeting, risking my own job in the process. I’ve helped direct some to shelters and encouraged them to press charges. I’ve been a designated driver at events where there is drinking. I also look for people who might be putting things in drinks.

When I was a youth minister, I immediately realized my pastor was an abuser. Did I resign? No. That would have been the easy way out. Instead, I took him on, even alienating myself with leaders–ladies and gentlemen on the Personnel Committee–who would later seek to fire me for taking on that abusive pastor. It got me several negative references when I went to other churches, and it took me longer to earn the trust of those other churches, but it’s a price I have no regret paying.

As someone who works on the security team at my church, I am LOOKING for bad guys. And not necessarily ones who are armed. I assume the abuser could be someone on ministerial staff, someone I otherwise find likeable.

So the question is, what do I do if a child comes to me and says John Doe asked him (or her) to do something, or touched him (or her) somewhere, or…[name the act]?

While it may not have corroboration, I would still immediately report it to the police and tell the appropriate leaders about it. The accusation could be something, or it could be nothing. It may be indeterminate, but that could change if someone else comes forward.

If a woman tells me she’s being abused, I’m going to direct her to the shelter, and report what I must. I will also encourage her to file the police report. Aside from my own experiences with abusers, I once dated a gal–a former running buddy–who had been physically and sexually abused by her mother’s boyfriends. She is about the same age as LA. It took a while before I realized she was bulimic. Damn-near went broke trying to save her.

So yeah, I do what I can in my sphere of influence. Still, when it comes to #BelieveWomen, I think the question is wrong. I neither believe nor disbelieve accusations; instead, my position is to take them seriously–because their veracity is very possible–and encourage appropriate action. If it’s something criminal in nature, I push them to press the charges, because that is what is likely to start the ball rolling toward real change.

The accusations may be true but unsubstantiable; I believe that, if that is the case, we will one day know the truth, even if that doesn’t happen in a timetable I would prefer.

The accusations may be true, and subsequent investigation–and I’m talking law enforcement, not in-house folks–corroborates it. Then you can take it to the house.

They may also be false. I say that not as a, “Women lie all the time!” line that misogynists use, but rather an acknowledgement that members of both sexes have been known to tell lies, especially when they have motive. And contrary to popular opinions, we humans generally do a horrible job of telling whether someone is truthful or lying.

There are times when the circumstances–which establish a motive–compel me to take accusations seriously while having an understandable skepticism. Being skeptical in those cases hardly makes one a misogynist or one who would shove victims aside. Quite the contrary: the liars are in fact the ones who ruin it for the victims.

That brings me to the case of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford.

I did everything I could to maintain an open mind on that one. But I had serious problems:

(1) No corroboration whatsoever. Everyone she named was unable to so much as place themselves, let alone Kavanaugh and Ford, at a party that she described. Had there been one classmate who would have vouched for that much under oath, it would have been enough to demand explanation.

(2) Not even her friends recalled her mentioning anything about the alleged event at the time.

(3) While her not filing a police report then would have been understandable, that she did not file one recently–even though the police said they would investigate if she did–makes me question her motives. If he is an abuser, then reporting him now would at least trigger an investigation. If there are other victims–and if he is an abuser, there will be many victims–they could be discovered in the process of that investigation.

(4) The way Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) handled the “letter” tells me that this was a political matter, not a criminal one. If she took Ford’s account seriously and wanted to stop what she believed to be an abuser, she would have sent this to the FBI.

(Think about it: if I’m in a church, and someone comes to ME with a story like that, what do you think I’m going to do? Give it to the police, that’s what! I don’t NEED permission from the accuser to do that.)

(5) She has a motive to lie, and that motive is political. When she answered this issue with the, “Anyone who knows me knows I would never…” line, my cynicism meter spiked.

(6) While many found her story to be compelling, I did not. In fact, she came across to me as an actor. And she could do that, given that (a) she’s a PhD in psychology and (b) therefore she would know how to construct a story that would appeal to anyone who knows the first thing about that kind of trauma. I have friends who are in that boat who also weren’t buying it.

Now does this mean I think Kavanaugh is all that and a pound of bourbon-cured honey bacon? Not necessarily. He could turn out to be great, or he could turn out to be horrible. He could be upstanding, or he could be scandalous. Sometimes, God allows time for one’s sin to find him or her out. Could that happen with Kavanaugh? You bet, assuming he’s a psychopath.

In the case of judicial nominees (including SCOTUS), my views on the matter are comparable with Lindsey Graham’s: Presidents ought to have wide latitude in those picks, because elections have consequences. This is why I have no problem with Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan or Sotomayor on the bench, as much as I disagree with their views on almost everything of major importance.

I just see no compelling reason to keep Kavanaugh off the bench, and an uncorroborated accusation from his high school days doesn’t cut the mustard. I found it ridiculous that this devolved into haggling over yearbook comments or who said what about whom.

Fact is, there were gals and guys–during my high school days–with whom I had a hostile relationship at the time, but who are now FB friends of mine today and we get along like we were buddies all along. I have other folks who were good friends back then but, due to a number of factors, are very chilly toward me (and vice versa) today.

There were also a number of things we all joked about–and yes, sex was among those–and that’s all it was: jokes. Locker-room banter. Yes, I confess to having said, “I even wouldn’t put an American flag over so-and-so and do her for Old Glory!” a few times during high school. It was a common joke among us guys, and–while I’m not proud of that–we’re really screwed as a country if those juvenile moments are enough to stop a guy like me from being in a position of public trust today.

The crowd with whom I hung out, a few of whom were in the top 10% of the class–talked a lot of smack about sex, but I can also tell you we weren’t into chasing the gals: we hit our books, got our grades, played sports together, and stayed away from the party scene. But if we’ve reached the point where we’re going to mount character assassinations–based in part on such banter in high school–all because we don’t like a person’s politics, then we have a larger problem in this country.

We are now learning that she indeed had a political motive. Her own attorney said so.

Kennedy Retires. Will Roe Go Down? Not So Fast

Posted on by Amir

First, a few stipulations:

(1) I’m very much in the pro-life camp. I’m opposed to abortion, and support its criminalization. People who have abortions–provided they are doing so out of choice and not compulsion–are murderers, as are any parties who perform or assist in them. The repeal of Roe v. Wade would trigger great celebration in my household.

(2) (1) is the key reason why I voted for Trump over Hillary in the 2016 election.

(The other reason: from my experience in government, I saw it imperative that we do everything possible to hold off the onslaught of the Marxist SJWs that would complete the hijacking of federal government if Hillary won. But that is a different discussion.)

—–
With that out of the way, I am thrilled to see Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring. Originally billed as a conservative pick by Reagan, Kennedy became a total cuckold in 1992 in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, when he joined Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter to betray the unborn by refusing to overturn Roe.

His leftism extended to the Lawrence v. Texas case, which opened the door to the infamous Obergefell v. Hodges decision that redefined marriage.

Good riddance, Mr. Kennedy. Don’t let the door hit you in the rear-end…

This obviously creates a wonderful opportunity for President Trump to nominate a solid conservative to the Court, which currently has four hard liberals (Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg) three hard conservatives (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch), and one mostly conservative Chief Justice (Roberts) who got too cute by half with ObamaCare and refused to reverse himself when he had the chance.

A hard conservative would tilt the court to the right, and this would seem to spell the doom for Roe v. Wade.

This is why the left is acting like Armageddon is near: they know that their right to murder babies is in the greatest peril since 1992.

Making matters worse for them, this is a midterm election year.

What does this mean?

(1) With the retirement of Kennedy, the Democrats–who depend on the abortionista base and the labor unions for money–now must go all-out to take back the Senate.

If they fail here, it will be a worse defeat for the Dems than the Reagan elections. This is because Trump may get not just this pick, but potentially two more Court picks, thus creating the most conservative Supreme Court in the last century.

That means the GOP will likely keep the House, as the Dems must pour their resources into Senate races, as they have several vulnerable Democrats who are up for re-election as well as a few vulnerable Republicans they hope to challenge. If the GOP holds serve, it will be a major victory.

Having said that,

(2) Trump still will face a major battle to confirm his next SCOTUS pick.

Currently, Republicans have a 51-49 edge in the Senate. Two Senators–Sens. Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK)–are pro-abortion and could easily scuttle any nominee they don’t like, and with little consequence to their re-election prospects. If they flip, Trump won’t have the votes.

Meanwhile, the two Senators from Arizona–John McCain and Jeff Flake–are very anti-Trump. McCain is on his deathbed and could easily vote down any Trump pick just to stick it to Trump. Flake, also a Trump-hater, could also vote it down out of spite.

That’s 4 potential GOP votes against a Trump pick coming out of the gate.

If Trump wants to get his pick confirmed, he will need to appeal to Red-State Democrats who are on the bubble.

That will be a very tall order.

I’m old enough to remember when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork for SCOTUS. Six Republicans voted against Bork. The biggest embarrassment came from my home state at the time–Pennsylvania–when Arlen Specter (R-PA) attacked Bork. When he abandoned Bork, five other Republicans on the bubble also followed suit. The Bork nomination died, 58-42.

From there, Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg. His nomination never made it to a vote, as his past marijuana use created too much controversy.

Reagan would then settle on Anthony Kennedy. And we know what happened from there.

Trump and McConnell have their work cut out for them.

My prediction: there will be no vote on a SCOTUS pick until after the election.

(3) Even if Trump gets his pick confirmed, it does not guarantee that Roe v. Wade will die.

My cynicism on this stems from two observations.

First, recalling Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

At the time, the conservative majority on the Court seemed poised to kill Roe. O’Connor unexpectedly sided with conservatives in the 1989 Webster case, hinting that she might be up for sticking the fork in Roe. And Bush had appointed two conservative Justices–Souter and Thomas–who, at the time, were living up to their billings.

A 7-2 vote to kill Roe seemed plausible, and would have been poetic, as a 7-2 vote created Roe in the first place.

But in the Casey decision, O’Connor could not get herself to vote down Roe. Souter and Kennedy would join her.

What seemed like a 7-2 death-knell for Roe turned into a 5-4 affirmation of it.

Currently, you have 3 justices who will almost certainly kill Roe: Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. I put Roberts on the bubble only because of his misstep on Obamacare.

For Roe to fall, you need at least one woman on the Court who will vote to kill it. It will take a woman to get the other 4 conservatives on-board.

None of the current woman on the Court will do that. Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are hardcore pro-aborts.

There is a woman on Trump’s short list: Amy Coney Barrett. A charismatic Catholic and mother of 7.

If Trump nominates Barrett, you will know he is serious about kicking Roe‘s ass.

And if she gets in, I would rate the chances of Roe going down at about 70%. She will have the chance to be Deborah and Jael, in one fell swoop.

But that’s a big IF, for the reasons stated. If he nominates Barrett, the Bork hearings will be a walk in the park in comparison. Democrats will be in full meltdown.

Second, I am not sure if the ranks of the Church are serious about killing abortion.

I say this from experience. I have been in many churches and have given presentations on various angles of the pro-life cause. I was a counselor at a crisis pregnancy center. I was a speaking director for a maternity home. I spoke in a lot of otherwise conservative churches. I’d say that the vast majority of my abortion-minded clients were otherwise professing Christians. (I only recall one who was an Atheist.)

Here’s the thing: the Church has a mother lode of family jewels under the surface. Many families that would identify as pro-life on paper, have a pregnancy-abortion scandal under their tent. They may agree with you about the reality of abortion, but they want it there for their kids “just in case”. These are the types who voted for Clinton in 1992.

Combine that with a cadre of otherwise conservative ministers who have demonized Christians who supported Trump over Hillary–yes, Thabiti Anyabwhile, I’m talking about you–and you have a critical mass of confusion among the Body. It also doesn’t help when popular evangelical authors like Beth Moore and Jen Hatmaker and Rachel Held Evans are not forceful on matters of life and, in the case of the latter two, have jumped off the cliff for every SJW cause under the sun.

(And no, I’m not saying that ministers need to tell people who to vote for; it is, however, perfectly appropriate for a minister to say that particular issues are of very significant importance, and that those who vote with those issues in mind are not selling out to the devil.)

So, to make a long story short, Kennedy’s departure is a great opportunity. But victory for pro-lifers is far from certain in this matter.

Toys R Us Reaps Whirlwind

Posted on by Amir

This week, Toys R Us anncounced that they will be closing or selling all of their stores, effectively liquidating. Their Chapter 11 Banruptcy will almost certainly become a Chapter 7 liquidation, which means that the brand, as we know it, is done. The WaPo, surprisingly, has an insightful piece on the downfall of Toys R Us. In their public announcement, TRU said:

The decrease of birthrates in countries where we operate could negatively affect our business. Most of our end-customers are newborns and children and, as a result, our revenue are dependent on the birthrates in countries where we operate. In recent years, many countries’ birthrates have dropped or stagnated as their population ages, and education and income levels increase. A continued and significant decline in the number of newborns and children in these countries could have a material adverse effect on our operating results.

Andrew Van Dam of the WP adds:

It may not have been the biggest existential threat confronting Geoffrey the Giraffe (the store’s mascot), but it’s the one with the broadest implications outside of the worlds of toys and malls.

Measured as a share of overall population, U.S. births have fallen steadily since the Great Recession. They hit their lowest point on record in 2016 — the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has comparable data.

What IS interesting is that, for many years, TRU supported Planned Parenthood; they ended that support in 2010.

In other words, over the course of decades, TRU provided financial support for a cause that served to erode their market base.

Sow the wind..reap the whirlwind.