Should the Indy 500 Be Shut Down? Is Auto Racing Disrespectful of Human Life? [Repost from 2016]

Race Car in Pits File Photo

[reposted from 2016]

According to AP, there have been 66 deaths in connection with the Indy 500 site since 1909, including 40 drivers, 14 mechanics, nine spectators and a little boy playing in his own yard nearby. Additional deaths, of course, have occurred in other venues. The deaths have continued up to the current era, and have involved some of the most elite drivers, as has also occurred with stock car racing.

At a time when we need to be encouraging respect for human life and the development of a stronger conscience with regard for human life and the dignity of the human person, in the face of assaults upon respect for human life, it probably is a good idea to ban auto racing. Some first steps could include holding organizers financially responsible for any deaths or injuries, on a strict basis, with multiplying financial penalties added, without regard for supposed assumption of risk by spectators or participants.



Sentimentality and would-be tradition, especially in a sleepy setting like Indiana, not necessarily steeped in many other traditions, should not be an obstacle to changes. I myself like hearkening back to some old family connections with the race, which were nice in the themselves, yet that does not balance out with more important considerations and proactive steps to move forward.

I have mixed feelings about the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500. My paternal grandfather, God Rest His Soul, built at least one race car that ran in the Indy 500, back in the late 1920’s or early 1930’s. My father had early childhood memories of Eddie Rickenbacker coming to the house, the great World War I flying ace who developed a passion for auto racing and, at one time, owned the Indy 500. The family connection with racing would be interrupted when my grandfather passed on prematurely, in his late thirties, apparently from health-related reasons, when my father was only eight years old. Years later, a brother-in-law became CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and briefly had his company sponsor a car, from a racing team led by a racing legend.

While human life in any era is sacred and precious, there is, perhaps, a temptation to think that the deaths are part of a murky past with less sophisticated technology and lower safety standards, or related to the skill of a driver. The first death at the race was in 1911, in the very first race, when a mechanic was killed.

However, just five years ago, Dan Wheldon distinguished himself as an elite driver by winning the Indy 500 for the second time, only to get killed in a crash the same year at another track.

Interestingly enough, my father, God Rest His Soul, never seemed to take people to the race, in my memory, although he and my mother did take me to qualifications once. (Ironically, the driver we saw on foot, standing near our bleachers, by coincidence was the racing legend who later had his team sponsored by the brother-in-law.)

But before I was born, my father did take some older siblings to the race itself, and there was a huge accident involving a large number of cars. Footage from the accident would actually be used in a feature film about the Indy 500. Real-world footage of the accident and its aftermath was embedded within the dramatized action of the film. As I watched that movie, as a rerun on a television, one of the older siblings came into the room, saw the accident, and said that he recognized it, as an accident that had occurred at the race he was taken to, years earlier, by my father. He remembered the iconic moment when, amidst the chaos, a wheel snapped loose and came rolling out of the chaos, continuing down the track at high-speed by itself, with no car attached.



Years later, my father and mother did attend at least one race when the brother-in-law’s company sponsored a racing team.

But, during that long hiatus, perhaps my father was quietly dissuaded from going to more races, after taking what were then small children to a race, only to witness a massive multi-car accident. More so than witnessing an accident, there also is the danger of spectators getting killed. In the modern era, in one instance, a wheel that broke off in an accident hurtled upwards and into the stands, killing a spectator completely at random, halfway up the stands.

It is unquestionably disrespectful to human life, and therefore un-Godly and un-American, to subject human beings to those dangers for something as trivial as a quasi-sporting event.

Arguments about technological benefits are unpersuasive. Technological innovations can be tested in other ways, in other settings, without the same issues arising in the same way. The competitive profit motive of auto racing and the purse might help instigate innovation, but that does not justify the loss of human life.

Actual testing tracks do not have to be built along the lines of the Indy 500. Indeed, the Indy 500 track, which originally was brick, and has corners reportedly banked for cars going less than 100 mph, is not necessarily suitable for modern test track purposes.



And it is not clear that we even need to use human drivers, in a cockpit, for modern testing of vehicles. It would be possible in today’s era to test vehicles, on remote testing tracks, with no actual driver behind the wheel, or with a driver who pilots the car remotely. The point is not that there should be races run that way. The point is, that if one argument for auto racing is that it could induce technological innovation, the response is that there are other ways to conduct the testing that are safer for humans.

An additional concern is the moral impact on moral conscience, from watering down the conscience by risking, or ending, human life for frivolous reasons.

One of the biggest challenges to human society in the current era, as always, has been to inspire the development of a stronger conscience in favor of respecting human life.

Terrorism; other forms of war; widespread prenatal child-killing (cast by its aficionados as the pseudo-clinical euphemism “abortion”); euthanasia; health care rationing; human trafficking; drug trafficking; permissiveness and sexual degradation; and other threats to human life and human dignity compound their initial impact by also besieging and undermining moral conscience.

We need a push to build a stronger moral conscience, in defense of human life, not efforts to weaken or water down human conscience. We do not need the would-be excitement, sentimentality, false rationalizations, or mere habit-building, associated with something like auto racing, to whittle away at the proper formation of proper conscience.

One argument sometimes raised, to promote quietism in the face of the threats auto racing poses to human life, is a generic, abstract idea of simply pushing the limits of something, of going higher and faster, and so forth.

The problem is, that argument rests on the notion that limits do exist in the first place.

The issue becomes, what limits are appropriate, and what limits can be pushed.



For example, football is now realizing that head-on-head contact is a limit that has to be ratcheted back, with a firm line drawn in the sand, because of the reality of head injuries and their ripple effects.

With some kinds of risks, there is no need to push limits, because the limits are appropriate.

For example, a few individuals have parachuted from an altitude so high, that it felt like they were in outer space. In broad daylight, they rose by balloon to an altitude so immense that the blue sky disappeared, and the black sky and stars came out. The first time that happened, the parachutist got to a point where he temporarily blacked out, and had to rely on the chute opening automatically.

The depths of the ocean are so bone-crushing with their water pressure that no human could survive without a heavy diving structure. Yet it would be foolish to deliberately push the limits of depth for scuba-divers, to the edge of where they could be killed. It would be frivolous to sell tickets to which whether somebody got killed scuba-diving, when they deliberately tried to go too deep.

Or, where limits exist, there might be other ways to push the limits, or to focus on pushing entirely different limits. For example, in football, there are other ways to deliver hits without causing concussions.

One concern should be whether, in some childish, emotionalistic way, anybody would think that the seriousness of deaths and injuries in auto racing somehow translates into seriousness of purpose, or makes the race more “important.” The opposite is true. The seriousness of deaths and injuries in the sport highlight how frivolous the activity is, when compared with the sacredness of human life and the seriousness of the deaths.

Even worse would be if there is a small subset of the population that actually ever got a sick thrill from seeing accidents and the possibility of death. In the Confessions of Saint Augustine, he describes a friend who apparently was addicted to visiting the “arena” as a spectator, which presumably meant gladiator fights or worse. The friend apparently was an otherwise normal person, perhaps even aspiring to being a Christian like Saint Augustine. The friend also knew that visiting the arena was something he should avoid.

Yet he found aspects of it addictive.

With regard to auto racing, one step that could be taken would be to make the organizers legally and financially responsible, under strict liability, for any deaths or injuries to spectators. One could try to argue that there is some assumption of risk by the victims. Yet that is not a risk that anyone should be allowed to assume, because no reasonable person could assume such a risk and still be considered reasonable. That is, no one in his right mind would think that sitting and eating a hot dog while a vehicle goes by at high speed is important enough to justify getting killed.

In the instance of the spectator in the late 1980’s killed randomly by a flying wheel, the widow reportedly sued for $9 million, then reached a confidential settlement.

Given financial responsibility and financial incentives, organizers would be in the best position to adopt better safeguards.

Another issue that might come up is whether some tracks or some circumstances are safer or more dangerous than others. There has been a driving death at the Indy 500 track as recently as the 1990’s, however.

On the other hand, if other tracks and other races are more likely to have deaths now, and if shutting down tracks one-by-one, from this point forward, is the way towards a gradual step-by-step ban, so be it.



For the Indy 500 itself, one added twist is the race’s spot on the calendar on Memorial Day weekend. Memorial Day, of course, has a focus on remembering and honoring our departed, including those who perished in military service defending the nation. Indeed, the Indy 500 features taps as part of its ceremonies, as well as an invocation by a religious figure. At a time when we remember the departed, and acknowledge those who made the ultimate sacrifice, the natural reaction should be to have a heightened respect for human life, and a heightened sensitivity to the realities, and loss, associated with death. Sensitivities to these values should be raised, not lowered. To do otherwise would be un-Godly and un-American.

First time buyer SPECIAL - Free Shipping + Free Gifts



SCW NEWSWATCH: “When she decided not to abort twins, the #abortion facility locked her inside” – LiveAction/ Sarah Terzo

Baby Sleeping on Mother's Stomach, adapted from image at cdc.gov

Live Action reports on a woman with twins who, it was said, encountered various tactics impeding her choice to leave an abortion clinic without terminating her preborn children.

“Sidewalk Advocates for Life shared a video telling the recent story of a woman pregnant with twins who changed her mind about having an abortion. When the woman tried to leave the abortion facility, workers there refused to unlock the doors and let her go. … Even if the abortion [clinic] ‘counselor’ did in fact lie to try and convince the mother to abort her set of healthy twins, the abortion was thwarted, and the twins were allowed to live. … [T]he sidewalk counselor was pivotal in saving the lives of these children. The pregnant woman later told Laura that had she not been there, she would probably have gone back to the facility and aborted her babies eventually. But the pregnancy resource center was there to help her, and she was given the resources she needed to choose life.”



Live Action additionally reports on what apparently was a diversity of anti-abortion activity outside the abortuary, such that, while a helpful, supportive sidewalk counselor aided the mother, different parties presented angry protests that caused unhelpful distraction.

“There is one more important point to be taken from this story. Along with the sidewalk counselor outside the facility that day, there were a number of anti-abortion protesters who were yelling at the woman going in. Even before finding out she was carrying twins, the pregnant woman was feeling ambivalent about having her abortion. She had wanted to stop and talk to someone outside the clinic and looked for a friendly face. But the people yelling at her were so hostile that she was afraid to stop. She didn’t feel she could trust the people outside the clinic, so she hurried inside instead. If the angry, yelling people had not been there, this woman may have never even entered the facility. …”

Click here for: “When she decided not to abort twins, the abortion facility locked her inside” – LiveAction/ Sarah Terzo

[featured image is file photo from another occasion]





 

If You Are Prolife, You Need to Oppose the Kavanaugh Nomination

File Photo of Portion of U.S. Capitol Dome and U.S. Flag, adopted from .gov image by Steven C. Welsh

Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was one of the architects of Abortionism as the deciding vote and co-author of the 1992 Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey decision that modified Roe v. Wade yet carried forward the decriminalization of abortion.

Yet, within a year, current Donald Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh signed on as a law clerk for Anthony Kennedy. Rather than repudiate that decision and apologize, during his nomination process, Kavanaugh instead has ratified and updated his association with Kennedy by calling Kennedy a champion of liberty, saying Kennedy has left a legacy of liberty.



So Kavanaugh clerked for a pro-abortion Justice who was the deciding vote keeping abortion going, and now promotes the pro-abortion Justice as a “champion of liberty.”

If you are prolife, you need to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination. And, if you do not, it calls into question whether you were ever pro-life to begin with.

Kavanaugh additionally allowed pro-abortion Condolleeza Rice to help introduce him before the Judiciary Committee.

Kavanaugh’s association with powerful, celebrity pro-abortion figures implies a shocking lack of moral conscience and poor judgment.

Abortion is the biggest human rights violation of our time, and he has associated himself with it by his actions and his remarks.



Human life, and the right of the innocent not to be killed, is the most fundamental of liberties, making abortion one of the biggest enemies of liberty. Protection of innocent human life also is one of the foundations of legitimate government, one of the excuses government has for existing in the first place. Yet Kavanaugh has associated himself with enemies of the right to life and persons who thereby have set themselves against the defense of American lives.

Working for a pro-abortion judge, alone, is enough to make Kavanaugh unfit. Yet calling a pro-abortion judge a champion of liberty means that Kavanaugh is a person who stands liberty upside-down and someone whose analytical intellect is either wholly unfit or twisted by self-serving dishonesty.

One can only speculate as to Kavanaugh’s motives, then and now.

Yet one of the biggest problems with abortion today is the risk that something horrific and unthinkable, the deliberate taking of defenseless human life, has become “business as usual” or routine. Kavanaugh’s casual attitude towards saluting Kennedy contributes to a climate of human life being regarded as cheap and expendable.

Kavanaugh’s flippant, oblivious attitude stands in the way of the necessary readjustment of public attitudes about this widespread human rights violation.

As such, Kavanaugh might even be responsible for deaths already. Women in difficult situations, pressured into confused acquiescence with the killing of their child, might back their way into because some segments of society wish to blur over the nature of the situation. Kavanaugh has added to the blur.

Given his origins as a local Washingtonian child of privilege, we have no idea to what extent Kavanaugh is a self-serving social climber who decided to “go along to get along.” We know that, amidst accusations of drunken, underaged, psychopathic, criminal behavior, Kavanaugh, in a sometimes emotionalistic set of responses, blurted out defensive remarks about his high school class rank — as if that piece of data had any relevance whatsoever to the charges.

Now, Kavanaugh did not even go to the best school for boys in the Washington area. That would be Saint Anselm’s Abbey Academy, traditionally one of the top-10 schools in America for SAT scores. Kavanaugh went to a different school that presumably is respectable academically, yet is more of a posh, country-club-like school. Yet if, all these years later, as a would-be grown-up, aKvanaugh still gets excited about his class rank, to the point that he apparently thinks it helps deflect accusations of criminality, just how important was it to him to climb the social ladder, such as with Yale, plumb judicial clerkships and so forth.

Kavanugh is somebody who was made a partner at Kirkland & Ellis less than a decade out of law school, with no law firm experience, based solely on his judicial clerkships, a brief stint with the Solicitor General and his work for Special Prosecutor Ken Starr.

Did Kavanaugh really not care about the mass murder of innocent American babies in the womb, if being oblivious to that horror meant fluffing his resume with a Supreme Court clerkship, instead of rejecting involvement with a human rights violator?

Is his desire to fluff his credentials now so great, that he wants to continue gliding along in the giddy heights of legal profession and Washingtonian elites, by fantasizing that the clerkship was something impressive, with a champion of liberty, rather than a black mark on his record that should bar him from his own judicial appointment?

In any event, his current posture makes him morally and intellectually unfit for judicial office.

If you, yourself, want to be known as prolife, you cannot support him. If you do support him, you are making it “open season” to expose yourself as not being prolife.

And that goes for the big-money anti-abortion groups that have decided to endorse Kavanaugh personally instead of simply addressing the broader issue. With roughly 60 million surgical abortions in the United States and counting, it would be silly to refer to anything like a “pro-lif establishment.” Yet, to the extent that some big-money nonprofits have tainted themselves by endorsing a troubled nominee like Kavanaugh, they also have exposed themselves as not being a good source of insight or leadership, as not being authentically prolife; and as not being an appropriation destination for financial gifts.

Again, if you, yourself, want to be known as prolife, you cannot support Kavanaugh. If you do support him, you are exposing yourself as not being prolife.





Brett Kavanaugh’s Association with Pro-Abortion Anthony Kennedy Renders Him Unsuitable for the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Facade with Parkland and Blossoming Trees, adapted from image at supremecourt.gov

Brett Kavanaugh’s association with, and ongoing endorsement of, pro-abortion former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy as a champion of “liberty,” reveals Kavanaugh’s lack of moral compass and judicial and intellectual incompetence.  As such, any loyal American and any person with respect for human life should oppose his confirmation to the Supreme Court and call for his removal from the judiciary.

The biggest threat to American lives, for four decades, has been so-called “abortion,” the deliberate taking of human life in a mother’s womb. Sixty million surgical abortions alone since the Roe v. Wade decision blocked prosecutions for abortion make it a bigger killer of Americans than all wars combined.  On average, abortion is nearly like having 9/11 occur every single day.



In 1992, abortion was kept decriminalized by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, with Anthony Kennedy serving as the deciding vote and co-author of the main opinion.

Yet, despite Kavanaugh’s supposed affiliation with the Catholic Faith, and despite his supposedly elite education, Kavanaugh was willing to serve as a law clerk for Anthony Kennedy within a year of Kennedy’s human rights violation as a perpetrator of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

If Kavanaugh had repudiated his past association with Kennedy, and attributed it immaturity, or a lack of awareness of the horrific scope and nature of abortion within less than two decades of Roe v. Wade, there still would be cause to reject his nomination.

Yet, right up until the present, and throughout his nomination process,  Kavanaugh has aggravated his wrongdoing, updated his association with Kennedy, and made it even more egregious by referencing Anthony Kennedy as having a legacy of liberty or being a champion of liberty.

That places Kavanaugh in the position of praising and admiring one of the architects of some of the most massive and atrocious human rights violations in human history.



Additionally, the scope of abortion as, literally, a direct threat and attack on the American population, calls for charges of de facto treason, and calls into question Kavanaugh’s patriotism and loyalty to the United States.

These facts alone would require a rejection of his nomination.

Defense of human life is the cornerstone of a national government’s right to exist, its justification for being a government.

Yet to associate an architect of decriminalized abortion with liberty, a cornerstone value of the American Republic, not only reveals Kavanaugh as an anti-American hypocrite, it calls into question his competency to engage in rational thought and honest intellectual analysis, and therefore calls into question his capacity to serve on the bench.

The most fundamental liberty, and first liberty interest mentioned in the nation’s founding Declaration of Independence, is the right to live and not be killed.

Abortion, the deliberate taking of defenseless human life, is the opposite of liberty.



Indeed, it is the defenselessness of the targeted victim that helps defines abortion. If a child in the womb had the capacity to defend herself, there would be no abortion.

Moreover, abortion’s scope is not only an existential threat to America, it is an existential threat to American democracy and the legitimacy of the American government.  It is not simply the the case that government justifies its existence on its ability to defend human life, but embraces the taking of human life on a massive scale.

Decriminalized surgical Abortion has killed roughly the same number of persons necessary to get elected to the Presidency.  One of the major political parties is in a position where it cannot form a legitimate government, because roughly as many Americans have been killed, in their mothers’ wombs, as the number of votes that party gets in presidential elections.  It would be like Hitler murdering 6 million Jews, getting 6 million votes from Nazis, and claiming that he was duly elected by the nation as a whole.

And, in addition to some Republicans being pro-abortion themselves, lukewarm Republicans mouthing anti-abortion positions but tepidly failing to take action to remedy the situation, call into question their own weak leadership and legitimacy.

Yet, on the level of intellect and rational analysis, Kavanaugh’s lauding of the person most responsible for decriminalized abortion as a champion of “liberty” is not simply treasonous.

It is, to put it simply, stupid.

Since getting killed is the opposite of liberty, Kavanaugh lauding an architect of the mass-killing of innocent American lives makes Kavanaugh sound like a manipulative liar and an intellectually stunted buffoon.



Additionally troubling is the context of Kavanaugh as a Washingtonian child of privilege, raising the prospect of him “going along to get along,” putting status and prestige, and resume-filling, ahead of right and wrong and ahead of loyalty to the nation.  His continued malfeasance in praising Kennedy raises the prospect of Kavanaugh of putting the desire to be “in with the in-crowd,” whether in Washington or in the troubled would-be “legal” profession ahead of moral and intellectual sanity, and ahead of the duty to protect American lives.

Any loyal American should oppose the Kavanaugh nomination.

Any person wanting to respect human life should oppose the Kavanaugh nomination.

Andy would-be “anti-abortion” group or individual, or would-be “conservative” group or individual that endorses Kavanaugh should be dismissed as contrary to their supposed mission; should be denied donations or honors; and should be rejected as a would-be voice for pro-life or traditional values.

Any legislator promoting the Kavanaugh nomination should be rejected and voted out.  If such a person has been posing as pro-life or traditional values or conservative, that might help explain why decriminalized abortion has malingered on for four decades — because someone flying a “false flag” took up space in the body politic that should have gone to someone who actually holds those values.

Of course, another reason that decriminalized abortion has malingered on has been Congress going AWOL, committing dereliction of duty and drawing their salary under false pretenses, by failing to carry out their Constitutional duty to impeach and remove renegade judges — renegade judges and justices committing crimes against the Constitution and associating with the treasonous mass-killings of Americans in their mother’s wombs.



The Constitution provides measures for its own amending.  A renegade judge or justice amending the Constitution in violation of that provision — such as by judicial fiat, by a vote of less than ten politically lawyers serving as justices — has committed an illegal act.

A renegade judge doing so, with the foreseeable and known result of the mass-murder of Americans, should be regarded as treasonous.

The Constitution does not have a gap allowing such a thing to happen; the Founding Fathers did not have a lack of foresight to fail to provide for such a contingency.  The Constitution provides for the removal of judges, by action of Congress.  Failure to carry out that Constitutional duty makes the weak, derelict legislators accessories by omission.

If we see that the same people pushing the Kavanaugh nomination also have failed to carry out their Constitutional duties of office, if we see that they have failed to take steps to remove renegade judges, then their involvement with Kavanaugh provides a useful filter calling for their exposure and removal —  a fresh reminder that they need to be rejected as failed leaders and removed from office, and replaced with actual leaders who will do their jobs and be loyal to America.



Of course, an added factor is that President Donald Trump also has praised Anthony Kennedy.

As long as Trump remains in office, it is up to Americans to send the nomination back to Trump, and tell him to “get it right’ this time by rejecting Anthony Kennedy’s anti-American legacy and nominating a proper nominee instead of Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, Trump has added further disgrace by appointing a pro-abortion Republican, Rudolph Giuliani, to a key White House post.

If there is an effort to “Dump Trump,” these embarrassing missteps should prompt such a movement now, while there is still time before the next Presidential election.

A Republican failure to do so would further expose, as fraudulent “cocktail conservatives,” any Republicans who additionally demonstrate a disrespect for the nation by attempting to push forward the troubled Kavanaugh nomination.





U.S. Capitol file photo

Brett Kavanaugh, Trump Supreme Court Nominee, Clerked for Pro-Abortion Anthony Kennedy, Year After Kennedy Cast Deciding Pro-Abortion Vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Supreme Court Facade with Parkland and Blossoming Trees, adapted from image at supremecourt.gov

For the second time in a row, President Donald Trump has nominated to the Supreme Court someone who chose to clerk for pro-abortion Justice Anthony Kennedy not long after Kennedy cast the deciding vote to keep abortion decriminalized, despite abortion being the biggest threat to American lives and one of the most grotesque human rights violations of this era.



Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which modified yet, nevertheless, reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, was argued April 22, 1992 and decided on June 29, 1992.

Trump’s latest nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, signed on to be a law clerk for Kennedy for the October term of 1993, according to Kavanaugh’s public biography on the D.C. Court of Appeals web site.

By comparison, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is listed as having clerked for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy in 1993 and 1994.  (Gorsuch’s path was a bit more circuitous.  He was hired as a kind of retirement benefit for a newly retired Justice White, similar to former presidents being provided a secretary.  While on the scene, he benefited from the opportunity for such “clerks” to also be added to the work done for actual, active Justices.)



The willingness to clerk for a pro-abortion jurist, especially so soon after Kennedy cast the deciding vote to keep abortion alive as judicial precedent, would ordinarily call into question the moral compass of a legal professional; his commitment or lack thereof to respect for human life; or his willingness to sacrifice moral principles for the sake of wealth, status and advancement.

Many questions remain — is Kavanaugh himself pro-abortion; does he simply not care that much about the matter; is he willing to “go along to get along” to gain wealth and status.  He later became a partner at the prominent Kirkland and Ellis law firm with little or no apparent law practice experience, with his main resume points being the Supreme Court clerkship and several years of assisting Ken Starr’s special prosecutor activities.



Any temptation to seek to minimize the significance of Kavanaugh’s actions because of the passage of time or his comparatively younger age would have to ignore the fact that he already was a grown man a few years out of law school, with other judicial clerkship experience already behind him.

Yet most glaring is his willingness, like Gorsuch, to ratify and make current his moral failing by saluting Anthony Kennedy in his remarks at the White House during the announcement of his own nomination to the Supreme Court.

With that action, his moral apathy and lack of a properly formed moral conscience was not simply part of a career stepping stone in his twenties.  It was updated to become part of his reality today.

Given the mind-boggling, and therefore treasonous scope of so-called abortion, apparently nearing 60 million Americans dead in their mother’s wombs from surgical abortions alone since Roe v. Wade, the logical response should be to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination and begin the process of replacing Trump.

Trump still has time to reverse course and find a more appropriate nominee.  Yet there is little indication that he would do so, especially considering his insistence of repeating his praise of his own mistaken choice of Gorsuch.

Even though Trump promised to “drain the swamp” and assist a Culture of Life, two times in a row he has nominated a former Washingtonian insider child of privilege who clerked for the same pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice.  He has done so in a climate of moral quietism that tries to treat the unthinkable horror of abortion as “business as usual” or settled law.

For thinking Americans who care about American lives, right and wrong and a solid national foundation in rule of law, the best choice is to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination and begin the process of replacing Trump with someone more suitable.







VOA: China’s Two-Child Policy Shift May Be Too Little, Too Late

China Map

(Voice of America – voanews.vom) BEIJING — China saw a smaller than expected uptick in the number of births following its landmark decision to end the country’s controversial one-child policy

In 2016, the number of births in China increased following its landmark decision to end the country’s controversial one-child policy and allow all parents to have two children.

Officials were quick to claim success, arguing that the increase of around 1.4 million new births (compared with an average from 2010-2015) was a sign the new policy was working.



Nearly half of the 17.86 million births last year were second children, but the increase was much smaller than officials and experts expected.

For many families, it is not the statistics that are worrisome, but the financial demands parents face in raising a second child.

Not cheap

Liu, a government employee spending the day with his family at Houhai Lake in the central part of Beijing, said after the policy was rolled out a year ago, he and his wife considered having another. In the end however, they felt the burden was too much to bear.

“[I] wish we could have a second child. One child on his own, is too lonely,” Liu said. “It would be better to have two children.”

Many parents noted the extreme costs of living in China, in particular larger cities such as Beijing.

More than just food and clothing expenses, parents said they spend as much as $1,000 to $2,000 (some even more) each month on extracurricular classes for everything from art to dancing and skating lessons.

In many cases, parents said they are taking a wide range of courses to see where their children’s interests are and to give them an edge in a highly competitive country.

Education and extracurricular activities are not the only expenses, added James King.

“Of course, there’s also travel overseas, which is very expensive,” King said. “We try to travel abroad at least once a year.”



Shared burden

James and his wife Lucy, who have a second child, said that they feel the benefits outweigh the costs, but added each family’s situation is different.

“In the future, [a] child must deal with four elderly parents, but having a brother or sister can make it easier to divide up those responsibilities.”

What is clear is the two-child policy is really more a question that those with residence in China’s major coastal cities, such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, are struggling with. For those from other provinces, bigger families are more common, despite the restrictions.

But that doesn’t mean their children see things differently.

Life’s pressures

Bai, a young hotel management worker from neighboring Hebei province, said his family, like many others where he is from, ignored fines in the past, to have more children. Especially until a boy was born.

Although Bai has two older sisters and comes from a big family by China standards, he was cautious when asked about his eventual plans for having children.

“Life is very stressful, but if I was to have a child, one would be enough,” Bai said. “Either a boy or girl would be fine.”



Demographic juggernaut

Traditional Chinese culture puts more emphasis on giving birth to boys as they carry on the family name. And according to tradition, girls are expected to take care of the family they join through marriage.

The over-emphasis on boys has led to a massive gender gap in China, and for critics it is one of the tragedies of the one-child policy. And that’s not the only demographic challenge China faces despite its massive population.

China’s working population is shrinking as the number of pensioners increases rapidly.

Starting next year, there is likely to be a persistent decrease in the number of children being born, experts say, as the number of women eligible to have a second child will begin to shrink as more fill their quota.

Like many of its Asian neighbors, China has a low fertility rate and so far the government has offered little in the form of incentives to encourage more births aside from ending its one child policy. And because of that, some critics say, the policy shift may be too little too late.





NEWSWATCH: “List of #Trump’s executive orders” – Fox News

White House file photo

“… An order that directs federal agencies to ease the ‘regulatory burdens’ of ObamaCare. … ‘… on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.’ * * * An order imposing a hiring freeze for some federal government workers …. This excludes the military, as Trump noted at the signing. * * *  a notice that the U.S. will begin withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. * * *  … the … ‘Mexico City Policy’ … ban on federal funds to international groups that perform abortions or lobby to legalize or promote abortion. …”



Click here for “List of Trump’s executive orders” – Fox News





NEWSLINK: “President Trump signs executive order defunding International Planned Parenthood” – Live Action News/Becky Yeh

Baby Sleeping on Mother's Stomach, adapted from image at cdc.gov

“On Monday … Trump signed an executive order reinstating the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits federal funding from going towards foreign nonprofit organizations that promote or commit abortions. … The policy … was implemented by … Reagan … [it] will effectively defund International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. Trump … [also] has made promises to defund Planned Parenthood and make permanent the Hyde Amendment ….”

America Passes Horrifying Threshold, As Clinton Gets Fewer Votes Than Number of Americans Killed by Policies She Promotes, Yet Still Almost Wins Presidency

White House File Photo

Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently is on track to total roughly 56 million votes, compared with roughly 59 million surgical abortions in the United States performed since 1973.  The United States confronts the baffling and horrifying spectacle of a politician nearly winning the Presidency while getting fewer votes than the number of people killed by policies she promotes.

Clinton is rabidly pro-abortion, emphasizing abortion in her campaign and having taken the extreme step of supporting partial-birth abortion, something opposed by a super-majority of Americans.  She also has praised, and accepted money from, the country’s largest abortion provider.

Tentative numbers late on election night have Trump getting about 58 million votes, and third or fourth party candidates getting another 5 million or so.



So if Clinton had succeeded in getting a plurality, she would created something akin to a constitutional crisis, or pre-constitutional crisis, and a threat to the foundations of the American republic.  She not only would have been getting fewer votes than the total votes against her; she would have been claiming the Presidency with fewer votes than the total number of people killed by policies she promotes.

The number of Americans killed in the womb by abortion is 59 million, the number of people voting against her was about 63 million, and she got roughly 56 million votes.

It would have been impossible for Clinton to form a government with democratic legitimacy in the context.  It would be analogous to Hitler murdering 6 million Jews, getting 5 million votes, having 7 million people vote against him, yet claim to be the duly elected leader of a democracy.

Clinton’s status as a pro-abortion extremist makes her a grotesque human rights violator.  Yet the sheer numbers involved with the killings also make it impossible for her to realistically be a participant in a republic grounded on the values of life and liberty.

One cannot participate in government of the people, by the people and for the people, when one is wrapped up in killing the people, and taking money from an industry that kills people, whether they be adults or children in the womb.

America crossed a horrifying threshold by seeing a major party candidate get fewer votes than the number of people killed by policies she promotes, yet still see that candidate get nearly half of the electoral votes.

This shocking occurrence should be an added wake-up call to “draw a line in the sand” against the shocking moral and demographic magnitude of prenatal child-killing in America.  This reality also highlights the need to recognize that those embracing what is a widespread human rights atrocity have no place in public life in the United States, especially as the nation aspires to be a democracy, a republic and a civilized nation.





NEWSLINK CBS: “Baby born twice after life-saving surgery outside of womb”

Medical Symbol

“… At almost 24 weeks, Cass and his team made an incision in Boemer’s abdomen and pulled almost half of Lynlee’s body out of her mother’s uterus to remove the tumor – which was almost larger than the baby herself. Then came the challenge of putting Lynlee back in and closing the uterus. ….”

NEWSWATCH Deal Hudson/The Christian Review: “The Catholic Church Doesn’t Really Care About Abortion”

Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception file photo, adapted from image at loc.gov

… To make matters even more stark, Hillary Clinton has made the support of Planned Parenthood, the proven seller of infant body parts, part of her political platform, while the platform of her Democratic Party has announced a more extreme pro-abortion clause than in previous elections. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has promised to sign a bill defunding Planned Parenthood and has published a list of potential #SupremeCourt nominees all in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

* * *

Pro-life Catholics need to wake up and realize that most of the ‘officialdom’ of the Catholic Church in the U.S. is already rolling out a national campaign that is virtually an arm of the Democratic Party. If you don’t believe me, start tracking the various conferences and forums being offered in your diocese, drill down to look at the host organization, the speakers, and their topics. Better yet, attend one and publicly voice your pro-life preferences and see what happens.

Click here for Deal Hudson/The Christian Review: “The Catholic Church Doesn’t Really Care About Abortion”