Regular Rostra commenter “Founding Father” asked me: Your insight and perspective as one who comes from a culture of Life first, while promoting and supporting a Pro-Abortion candidate through the RPSDC (Republican Party of San Diego County) endorsement of said candidate, illuminates what may be the thought process and definitive shift of a core-leadership team within the SDC GOP and what their motivation was/is regarding the abandonment of the GOP as the Party of Life.
Again, your measured, thoughtful insight is appreciated and respected as we delve into the sea-change that is the current GOP and its decidedly apparent shift in ideology.
For most of my life, Founding Father, abortion on demand has been the “Law of the Land.” On January 22. 1973, SCOTUS ruled that a woman had a fundamental right to abort her pre-born child and made an unscientific and utilitarian decision about when a human life actually started. Nine years later, as a junior at a Jesuit high school, I made the decision that SCOTUS was a political decision with little or no regard for science or the principles enshrined in the Preamble of our Declaration of Independence.
Ronald Reagan was President and I admired him and the new Holy Father a lot. I watched how Reagan’s four meetings with Pope John Paul II moved him from the California pro-choice Governor to a pro-life President who advocated for a constitutional “Personhood” amendment. As a teenager and young man, I was elected to a Republican County Committee (during Reagan’s second term). I started to learn what “political capital” was and how the protection of pre-born humans was subordinated to containing Soviet aggression. To govern is to prioritize and I suppose Reagan had to pick his battles so that his political capital account wouldn’t run dry.
Reagan’s pro-Life rhetoric wasn’t for naught, though. Abortions peaked at 1.6 million per annum in 1990 and have dropped to 1.1 million in 2012. Much of that decline might be attributed to demographics (the last baby boomer turned 26 in 1990) but public opinion has shifted over the past thirty years. A majority of Americans still think Roe v Wade shouldn’t be overturned, but a majority of Americans think restrictions on abortion should be tighter. The majority who think abortion should be legal has dropped while the majority who favor more restrictions is rising.
I think that’s a huge step in the right direction but there is so much more which should be done to protect the innocent human beings who are being killed each year.
Alas, this country has a bigger problem which, if left unsolved, makes tighter abortion restrictions and the ability to offer legal protection to pre-born humans untenable — our government is financially upside down. THAT fact is the reality which moved me off the sidelines and BACK into the political activist arena some eight years ago. When Medicare Part D kicked in, and I realized that Republicans were spending money on guns AND butter, I realized our country’s future existence was in peril.
It wasn’t easy to be “that Republican,” calling Bush a big government socialist in 2006 but I did. It wasn’t easy to be “that Republican,” questioning how we might pay for the troop surge in Iraq in 2007 but I did. It wasn’t easy to be “that Republican,” supporting a (then) fringe Republican Congressman over McCain in 2008 but I did. It certainly wasn’t easy to be that ‘racist,’ pouring “tea” into the ocean in 2009, but I was that guy (in spite of the ad hominem attacks hurled at me.)
It wasn’t easy to run as “that tea party” insurgent candidate for the Republican Central Committee in 2012 but I did…and won. Today, it isn’t easy to be on that Central Committee. For the most part, the Central Committee is more conservative than the registered Republicans in San Diego but our candidates in the City have to run in an environment which is stacked against them from the get go. Too many Committee members, in my opinion, have career connections with elected officials and that influences much of our agenda. Those elected officials also raise a lot of money into the party organization and I imagine their influence will be strong for years to come.
Like Reagan did on a much grander stage, I gotta pick my battles in the Committee. In the City of San Diego (which includes the 52nd Congressional District), Republican platform issues take a back seat to: (a) who will right the financial ship?, and (b) who has the support of the local elected officials. I could have stood against Bill Gore’s endorsement, because of his CCW policy, but no alternative was offered in his race. I could have supported one of two pro-Life candidates rather than a man who has fought for fiscal sanity alongside me, but I’d be doing a disservice to what I see as the most important issue of today:
The government is financially upside down
That issue is driving my activism today. While I understand that the political construct is much more that the financial viability of the federal government, I choose the let the Constitution define the proper role of government. To that end, while the arguments to secure the lives of pre-born children hold water under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, I think the People lack the political will to accept those arguments…today. Rather, repealing Roe v. Wade by using the Tenth Amendment appeals to me because it will save babies’ lives. Many pro-Life supporters argue the slavery analogy with me (when I cite the Tenth Amendment solution) and, while I accept that argument, I’ll remind them that rather than to let the Tenth Amendment expose the evil which is human slavery, our country fought a brutal civil war which resulted in 650,000-800,000 Americans killed. I don’t think that kind of political will exists to overturn Roe v. Wade today.
Endorsed federal candidates have to jump through the Tenth Amendment hoop (at a minimum) for my vote on the Committee. But even that hacks at the branches in my opinion because the root of the problem is this:
The government is financially upside down. I want to strike the root.
Don’t mistake me for a single-issue activist. It would be easy to support a candidate who calls for 45% across the board cuts but that would ignore the proper role of the federal government. Cutting the legitimate functions, as enumerated in Article One, Section Eight, to retain illegitimate functions (which should be left to the States and People), doesn’t make sense to me. Pushing those functions down to the States, Counties, and People (which include social security, Medicare, and Obamacare) makes much more sense to me.
Reassessing our foreign policy, to be less Wilsonian and more like Goldwater makes more sense to me. Questioning whether a Federal Reserve Bank charter satisfies three of the seventeen enumerated powers makes sense to me. Questioning whether the federal government is fulfilling or overstepping its powers granted by the Constitution makes sense to me because something is wrong. I know this because…
The government is financially upside down.
I don’t pretend that the Founders were some kind of gift of omniscience from God. They were flawed to a man but, as a body, they laid a foundation for a diverse, peaceful, and prosperous society with a maximum amount of freedom for the individual. That society has produced the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest amount of people in the history of humankind. That is in peril today.
I serve as an elected representative on a Republican County Committee for the third time in my adult life. That Committee is operating in an environment which can be hostile to Republican beliefs. That Committee is trying to be relevant in this hostile environment through electoral success. Compromises are made, trade-offs are made, ideas get squelched and dissenters run the risk of being ostracized by the Committee. I try to balance the need to advance my conservative principles with the need to remain relevant on the Committee. I’ve introduced ideas for changing the electoral process of the Committee. I’ve made the stand when I thought the Committee was overreaching. I’ve made certain choices to remain relevant rather than fight every single battle which is presented. I’ve done all of these things in a transparent matter with tepid support from grass roots conservatives.
I’m tired but I signed up for a four-year commitment and I always try to honor my commitments. The Republican Party is going through another drastic change on the national, state, and local levels and I think it’s going to be a good one. I don’t agree with every direction we’re headed but, on balance, I think it will make us more successful at saving this great nation from peril. While I’m tired, I’m always optimistic that, while not all of us will be completely satisfied, we’ll restore our party and our nation to something which resembles more of the Founders’ blue print for Liberty and Prosperity than exists today.
I hope that gives you some insight into (a) my world view, (b) how I’m trying to serve my term as a County Committeeman, and (c) the help I need to let our elected officials, candidates, and my colleagues in the Committee see that while I think the fiscal issues are of immediate importance, our Republican platform is one which advances the cause of Liberty and Prosperity.
Comments 50
Brian,
How can abortion not be the most important issue (maybe the only issue) for someone that believes that life begins at conception and abortion is murder? If 1.1 million Americans were killed annually by terrorists, the war on terror would certainly be the only issue any of us cared about.
Brian, as a former elected Central Committee member, past legislator representative on the Committee, and former Committee treasurer, as well as a past state GOP executive committee member and drafter of an adopted State GOP platform, let me just say this is an outstanding essay on balancing social conservatism with the fiscal reality facing the nation and party today. In fact, I’d say it’s probably the best I’ve ever read. Kudos on what I know took a lot of thought to transfer from belief to “paper.”
Thanks for the kind words, Barry.
Excellent question, HQ but your analogy might be off. Abortion is a government sanctioned aggression, against a human life while a terrorist attack would be an act of aggression from an external force.
Both are, in my opinion, murder but the former lacks the same sort of political will it took to end slavery. There are few if any modern-day John Brown’s out there and a lot of Frederick Douglass types in the abortion abolitionist movement.
The greater threat is the increasingly unsustainable federal budget. Overturning Roe v Wade through the ballot box, SCOTUS, or Legislative Branch is impossible if all three functions no longer exist.
Here’s my problem: The Republican Party Platform has a very clear stand against abortion. I find it completely hypocritical that this Republican Central Committee should endorse a candidate for Congress who not only ignores this core value of the Republican Party, but openly disparages it by supporting abortion. He (DeMaio) should never even remotely have been considered for the endorsement on this basis alone.
Slaves were able to speak out against slavery and gain the civil liberties to which they always had a legitimate God-given right. Pre-born children cannot. WE are their voices, and if we don’t speak out against those who support taking their lives, we may as well be condoning their killing.
Abortion has taken the lives of over 55,000,000 children – an entire generation and more. Along the way, the ruling that allowed this has given birth to the theory that the right to privacy is more important than the right of a human child to live, and that theory has spawned the assertion that to support the life of an unborn child is somehow illogically, a war on women. Not only that, but it also allowed men to think that, if the mother of their children had the choice of whether or not they wanted to have them, that fathers could also have the choice of whether they wanted to raise them and be part of their lives. This is a huge part of why we have so many fatherless homes now, and THAT is an element of our economy that will not be addressed unless we begin valuing life and begin supporting strong, natural families.
The San Diego Republican Party needs leaders who embrace core Republican values and will not compromise them for what they mistakenly think is a more likely Republican win in a given race, or mistaken loyalty to a party label rather than to the character, values, and policy positions of a candidate.
I cannot and will not under any circumstances support a candidate who supports abortion, and neither should any Republican. I find it even more reprehensible to use economic policy as an excuse to do so. That’s just wrong. We can recover economically. We can never recover the lives that will continue to be lost if we elect someone who supports taking their lives. Shame on those in the Central Committee who supported this for thinking it was acceptable.
Thank you for the brilliant response to Republican purity police who would rather 4 more years of Jerry Brown or Scott Peters, rather than support electable Republican candidates like Neel Kashkari or Carl DeMaio. You don’t build bridges by destroying them. At the heart and soul of our philosophy is a dedication to markets. Marketing and private sector appeals against abortion will reduce abortion. The solution isn’t going to come from government.
If social crusaders like Founding Father or Karen Grube spent half as much time working to reduce the size of government as they do fighting against gay marriage (especially in a state like California), we may not have such a leviathan of a government today.
The piece is a lot of nice words covering common compromise. Real leadership requires perseverance, courage and wisdom. It is hard work to always be pushing the conservative agenda. Yet somehow our opponents manage to always push theirs. Each one of us will have to answer, whether to grandchildren or history this question. What did you do when the were killing babies by the millions?
“What did you do when they were killing babies by the millions?”
Good question and comments, Sylvia and Karen. Now it’s my turn:
What exactly have you done other than write a bunch of nice words?
Maybe you prayed in front of an abortion clinic (as I have). Maybe you walked in protest (as I have). Maybe you funded groups like COLFS or Birth Choice (as I have). Maybe you volunteered at those places (I have not). Maybe you successfully lobbied your pro-choice Republican Congressman on legislation (as I have)…
But what exactly did you do in terms of direct action? There are no John Brown’s in the abortion abolitionist movement but there are plenty of people pointing the finger at one another claiming “I’m more pro-Life than YOU”…
It doesn’t matter. They are just nice words
Sylvia, I would say it is consensus and not compromise.
From Carl DeMaio’s website: “Carl DeMaio supports a woman’s right to choose. Despite the divisive rhetoric on both sides of this contentious issue, the reality is most Americans desire to protect life and do not view abortion as just another form of birth control. A better approach is to seek strong leadership by community organizations, church leaders, and families to reduce or even eliminate the amount of unwanted pregnancies and help create supportive environments whereby individuals can choose life.”
Other than the actual first sentence, I agree completely with his statement. I could concentrate completely on his first sentence or realize that I agree with his goals which are to go to the root of the problem. No unwanted babies = no abortions. So I could complain that he doesn’t want to make abortion illegal or that he identifies himself as “pro-choice” or I could work with him on what we both agree on which is to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
Compromise would be to give in on my principles. Consensus is working with someone on the issues or parts of issues where you both agree. I want to actually get something done and save lives, not just hear the right rhetoric.
As a Christ follower it never ceases to amaze me how many of my thoughtful brothers and sisters are outspoken when it comes to American infants but silent when it comes to American foreign policy and loss of innocent life overseas – as if Christ is American and has favorites.
Thank you Brian. Hoping for a principled return to our founders’ foreign policy someday as well. Would love to see billions of taxpayer dollars return to the private sector, increase prosperity and lowering unemployment.
How about that for a solution to our fiscal mess?
Just might decrease some of the blowback/terror aimed at us these past 30 years.
In addition, even the Romney-Ryan ticket supported abortion in cases of rape, incest, or for help of the mother. If you couldn’t get over that and vote for him over Obama, then your priorities are off.
To answer Brian Brady’s question, I have . . .
1. Donated to or supported the efforts of pro-life organizations including . .
Americans United for Life
National Right to Life
Operation Rescue (at one time)
Susan B. Anthony List
Thomas More Law Center
2. I spent HOURS on the phone trying to convince our state Senate and Assembly NOT to pass Toni Atkin’s horrific bill allowing non-physicians to conduct abortions. I spent about the same amount of time lobbying to hold abortion clinics to decent clinical standards, which of course was also defeated but which would have closed many inadequate and potentially dangerous abortion clinics.
3. I also spent HOURS on the phone lobbying members of Congress to stop funding Planned Parenthood and stop using our tax dollars to pay for abortions.
4. I donated to state and federal candidates over the years that I knew were pro-life, and yes I bothered to find out before I donated. AND I am fighting to keep pro-abortion candidates from winning ANY elections, like Carl DeMaio, by making sure people know he supports taking the lives of innocent pre-born children.
5. I became a Republican in large part because of the statement in the Republican Party Platform supporting life.
These actions and others were a lot more than mere words, Brian
Eric Andersen: It should be clear by now that abortion IS an economic issue. I’ll point you to just one study that estimates that abortion has cost this country over 37 TRILLION DOLLARS due to the millions of people who, because they were aborted, are NOT contributing to our economy.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/09/the-economic-impact-of-abortion.html
and another Townhall article by Star Parker that discuss the fiscal impact of abortion as well.
.
http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2013/10/28/marriage-and-abortion-are-economic-issues-n1731978/page/full
Is there some part of killing off a large part of the next generation that you don’t see as having an economic impact? Or do you subscribe to the idea that, for economic reasons, we should slow population growth as they are in China? Honestly, that’s not a rhetorical question.
YEASH!
Brian –
What exactly do you mean by “modern-day John Brown’s” and what, in your mind, would it take to be one?
A few points for Brian, Michael & Eric:
The question “What did you do when they were killing babies by the millions” was not meant as a personal “you” but rather an impersonal introspective “you.” And yes, I have been involved in many different aspects of the pro-life movement. I’ve actually experienced the joy of holding in my arms, a saved baby that would have been aborted except that we closed the clinic doors. But it is not a contest nor is it about me.
It is about leadership and with it comes greater responsibility. There can be a consensus depending on the level of the issue. For instance, when it is a difference on a flat tax vs a sales tax or term limits or not. However, when it is at the expense of another innocent life, there can be no compromise. Anymore than we could work with one that agreed with us on everything except for slavery.
As for the choice of either economic /fiscal issues or the life issue. It is a false choice since it is not either/ or, both are necessary. Candidates that stand for both are the ones I support and try to get elected. Granted none are perfect, but if you don’t respect the life of the most defenseless, why should you be trusted our finances?
As for the loss of lives overseas vs American babies, again is not either /or. Pro Lifers mourn at the loss of innocent lives everywhere. That’s why whenever there is a catastrophe, we are unsurpassed in generosity of giving and rushing in to save lives.
Excellent write up, Brian.
Picking your battles makes a lot of sense.
Author
“What did you do when they were killing babies by the millions” was not meant as a personal “you” but rather an impersonal introspective “you.”
I know it wasn’t personal and my response to you and Karen was meant to be introspective as well. I know you two have done a yeoman’s job in the abortion abolitionist movement.
Pro-Life activists are missing good political opportunities to meet with and influence Republican pro-choice candidates. For example, former Congressman Bilbray identified himself as “pro-choice” but voted to ban partial birth abortions and to ban transporting minors to get an abortion. He also signed the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”. I don’t know how that doesn’t make him a potential ally.
I”ll remind you that we live in California, not Oklahoma. The political climate here isn’t always kind to us
After June, pro-Life activists would do well to have a long meeting with Carl DeMaio and ask him some of the hard questions I did. Working with and influencing a pro-choice Governor Reagan produced a pro-life 40th President.. Working with and influencing a pro-choice Congressman DeMaio might produce a pro-Life Speaker in 20 years.
More importantly, y’all need to organize and show up en masse at GOP CentCom. If I wanted to influence a Committee, I’d assign one volunteer to each of our elected CentCom members and act as their “cheerful guide”, a buddy system if you will. That guide might speak take the CentCom member to lunch each month and offer moral support and guidance about what they are facing .
FWIW, if Dr Jennifer Morse sends me an email, I might read it. If she calls, I speak with her. But when Jen Morse looks me in the eye, and speaks to me with clarity, love in her heart, and an understanding of my Faith, political ideology, and need to remain relevant, she exerts more influence than a hundred thousand blog comments or Facebook posts.
Brian, nice attempt to deflect from the actual discussion here. Sure, no matter what a person does, there is always more that can be done. Naturally, it is always easier to make suggestions for what others should or could be doing. And by the way, I wish we had 10 more Dr. Jennifer Morse’s to unleash.
However, we all have different callings, which I can respect. And as was stated, we have to pick our battles. My position has already been stated in the previous post. It explains why I will not support a candidate that is “pro choice”..
I’ll close with a link, if it works, to my plea to the CRP, something I wrote a few years ago. I still believe the same, as truth is good politics.
http://right4lifenow.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2002-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2003-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=2
Sylvia, would you work with someone who says that most Americans desire to protect life and do not view abortion as just another form of birth control?
And also thinks a better approach is to seek strong leadership by community organizations, church leaders, and families to reduce or even eliminate the amount of unwanted pregnancies and help create supportive environments whereby individuals can choose life?
“Brian, nice attempt to deflect from the actual discussion here.”
My attempt was to invite you to get engaged in the local political arena. I tried.
Brian, I know you are a fellow Catholic, and a good one. The bible is very clear on abortion and marriage. Very simple. And from an economic point of view, consider the entire generation of 50 million citizens that have been wiped out due to abortion, who could have been contributing nicely to our economy. Thank God our youth are getting it, and find abortion to be “uncool”, and that includes candidates who support abortion, are also deemed “uncool”. Plus, the majority of Americans are now pro-life – so a candidate who supports abortion is absolutely on the wrong side of history. But I digress, and point back to the bible. Simple. Respectfully, mm
Mary, would you work with someone who says that most Americans desire to protect life and do not view abortion as just another form of birth control?
And also thinks a better approach is to seek strong leadership by community organizations, church leaders, and families to reduce or even eliminate the amount of unwanted pregnancies and help create supportive environments whereby individuals can choose life?
Hi Michael, I think the reason the nation has turned back to the founding principles of life is not only due to the advancements in science that clearly reflects life beginning at conception, but also due to the influence of the Church, and strong pro-life organizations who are educating the governed.
Lets hope it doesn’t take 41 years for our country to realize that same sex marriage is just as detrimental to the family as abortion has been.
I have great faith in our youth – they look to fact, not the rhetoric of politicians.
Michael,
I would ask a candidate what their position is on HR 7. I would craft the question to where whatever candidate was asked was not able to swirl in squishy, feel-good euphemisms of “choice, best practices, support, care, woman’s health” etc. I would stay away from the innocuous responses and ask the direct question. For people of faith, that is the issue. Intent is nice, but actions and proven conviction say a lot more.
BB- I have asked Thor’s Assistant if I can respond to your well-thought out and thorough response to my initial inquiry. I have asked TA to allow me to “guest post” as FF…I haven’t received a response yet. I wanted to thoroughly respond to you as well, and yet not make it an excessively long “comment”. Well done…your piece was very thought provoking.
FF
Mary, that didn’t answer the question. FF, same question to you.
Would you work with someone who says that most Americans desire to protect life and do not view abortion as just another form of birth control?And also thinks a better approach is to seek strong leadership by community organizations, church leaders, and families to reduce or even eliminate the amount of unwanted pregnancies and help create supportive environments whereby individuals can choose life?
Michael,
See above; I would by pass the euphemistic rhetoric and get to what is in a man’s heart..what is his character. I recognize this is a very high tight rope Mr. DeMaio is swaying on in high winds…he is crafting a “Though I will allow and support as a choice the right of a woman to terminate the life of her own child, I am certainly amenable to all the approaches to seek strong leadership by community organizations…blah blah… While noble in intent, it is weak in conviction. respectfully, it is a politician’s answer…not a leader’s one.
FF-
As always, I look forward to reading your thoughts. I know we both want the same thing in the end.
Mary,
Thanks for your comments. I’ll have some better thoughts up tomorrow
FF, I think you, Mary, and Sylvia think I am setting some kind of trap here. I’m not. I’m trying to show the difference between compromise and consensus. If in 2015 Congressman DeMaio called any of the three of you and asked for help with protecting life by strong leadership by community organizations, church leaders, and families to reduce or even eliminate the amount of unwanted pregnancies and help create supportive environments whereby individuals can choose life…you’d do it. You’d help. That’s not compromising your belief. That’s finding areas where you agree and working on them. (Consensus.) It’s not compromising your beliefs or principles. It’s acting on them and showing your strong character.
Michael,
Yes…in principle. I think the intent is great, but in the end, Mr. DeMaio’s position is analogous to the conundrum of “Take your time…but do it as quickly as possible…or we want the tallest midget…” While attempting one approach, the other is compromised. In Mr. DeMaio’s de facto position in “supporting” a woman’s right to “choose (to terminate her child) ” he is advocating the construct that allows for that mentality, the acquiescence, and tacit approval of aborting children. If it is wrong, or he wants to eliminate all those issues associated with abortion, then why not BE unequivocal for Life. Yes, the medically necessary aspect, life of the mother, other medical complications, are issues that certainly should be taken into account. But as long as there are politicians claiming the politically ambiguous ground of “cake and eat it too”, then there will be those that will continue to exploit and abuse the “construct” he implicitly supports.
“then why not BE unequivocal for Life.”
I want to reiterate this point–the political will of the people is not aligned with that construct. Abortion is, unfortunately. a vote-moving issue for only 1 in 6 voters and of those are equally split on life and choice.
There is a difference between DeMaio’s pro-choice stance and the Peters/Pelosi “abortion as a taxpayer-funded contraceptive” stance.
Brian,
Copy the practical political argument fueled by political expediency and perceived necessity…however, it is a function of conviction, My Friend. There are many who are bound by that conviction…As Edmund Burke stated so convincingly, ” All that is necessary for evil to win in the world is for a enough good men to do nothing..”
Author
“however, it is a function of conviction”
I appreciated your response in your article, FF. Naturally, I want to comment on that a lot but I want to read it a few more times and digest it. I’ll contain my thoughts to the quoted statement above.
This is my problem. While you, Mary, and I (and many others) share that conviction, I’m not so certain that the Republican voters in the San Diego County do.
That doesn’t mean I’m changing my stance on Life but I really do understand Bilbray’s pro-choice rhetoric and pro-Life votes today.
Michael , most church leaders that I know of would not work with Carl DeMaio. Plus he has damaged his relationship with many large donors who are true conservatives.
Friends, this is not a grey area, its black and white, you either believe in terminating the lives of the most vulnerable members of our society (the unborn) or you don’t. Plain and simple.
American is now pro-life. Those politicians who aren’t , are now on the wrong side of history.
And keep in mind one day we will all stand before our Lord. How on earth will you explain to him why you voted for a pro abortion candidate AND promoted the candidate to others.
Truly, i’d really like your answer on this one. Again, respectfully.
The all-knowing, all-mighty, creator of the universe won’t need me to explain. He’ll know and be proud to see me work with someone who wants a better approach by seeking strong leadership by community organizations, church leaders, and families to reduce or even eliminate the amount of unwanted pregnancies and help create supportive environments whereby individuals can choose life.
God is less interested in voting records and what your judgement is of others than He is in how you treat others. So…I’m good to go.
I have never commented on this website before because I find it a waste of time interacting with people who are fully vested in polluting the Republican Party with immorality under the deceptive guide of pragmatism. I find it even more detestable to discuss political and moral issues with people who I know, without question or reservation, have infected our churches with great corruption under the guise of unifying the Christian vote with unchristian political forces. However, considering the fact that I am about to drop a public bombshell on the current mayoral race, I simply could not restrain myself from commenting on Mr. Brady’s commentary. Mr. Brady, I have a rather lengthy list of documented instances of you mocking evangelical Christians including me, so I’m rather confused about the moral compass you are using to make any comments on Biblical issues such as abortion. Furthermore, you have been one of the driving forces inside of the San Diego GOP for forcing GOP voters to elect pro-abortion homosexual activist Carl DeMaio, a man who is involved in a homosexual sex affair with another homosexual man who promotes the gay pornography industry. I would agree with you that you are more than a one issue political person: homosexuality AND abortion, two issues you seem to be quite satisfied to have enshrined in the GOP via the candidates you are pimping to the good voters of San Diego. As a Christian, I would never dishonor God by slapping His will and purpose and holiness with promotions of men as my city’s leaders who love abortion, destructive homosexuality and the gay pornography. Why on earth would you test God or, even less importantly, why would you show such contempt for the GOP platform which rebukes sex between men of the same gender, particularly men who are intimately connected to the gay pornography industry which continues to spread AIDS like wildfire and breaking the budget with massive expenditures for HIV medical care? How did you fall so far away from God’s truth that you are willing to help facilitate the destruction of the moral fabric of this nation? – I’ll save my comment in case it is removed from this site, so I can post it next to yours in a blog debate on my site titled: woe unto those who call evil good and good evil. I will never, ever understand how anyone can claim they believe in God and they tout their historical infatuation with the “holy” father at the same time they are aggressively and hypocritically promoting homosexual candidates who defy God and mock His teachings in the Bible. Can’t you see that you quickening the pace of the destruction of this nation? Can’t you see what you are doing is so wrong in the eyes of God? Even though you will not be able to give me a decent answer for your hypocrisy, what answer are you planning to give God when He calls you to give an account for your sins?
Mary,
I don’t know how you can say that America is now pro-life. Every poll I have seen shows the majority of Americans to be pro-choice. Can you point me to any polling data that shows a majority who favor overturning Roe vs. Wade?
We know that some readers may take umbrage with Mr. Hartline’s comment. Not only is it his opinion, but it also speaks for itself. We will ignore pleas to remove it.
Yes, leave it up. It speaks to his character more than anyone else’s. Maybe the mocking isn’t of evangelical Christians, maybe its of angry, judgemental Christians, who are so guilt-ridden because of their own past behaviors, that they lash out at others in hate, instead of realizing God’s grace. I will pray for James’s heart, that he may see the full scope of that grace and that he may see what the Bible actually says about judgement.
Steve G. First of all, the Biblical imperative against judgment is NOT that we should not judge another person’s actions. It’s hypocritical judgment that we are admonished against; judging someone for the purpose of making ourselves look better or feel better about our own sins. “See, I’m not as bad as you.” THAT kind of judgment is wrong. Equally as wrong is judgment that is wrongfully intended. That is, if your intent is to cause pain or harm, that kind of judgment is also wrong. But judging behavior to be a sin according to God’s law and His word is not being “judgmental” in the way you mean.
By today’s standards, you would label Jesus “judgmental” when he said in Matthew 12:34 “You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. ” See the difference?
But the real issue here is about the choices we make as voters and as Republicans. I don’t care what others think, and I certainly don’t care what polls show. Money doesn’t win elections either. Votes do. The only real question to ask is whether or not you want to be responsible for more deaths.
On the issue of taking a pre-born baby’s life, the Bible is clear, and so is a call to simple humanity. Which means that trying to elect a candidate who thinks it’s okay to do that should be anathema to everything we believe, to every person of conscience. And it means that we should stand up for what we believe; that life is God-given and no one but God has the right to take it from us. It particularly means that, when we have a better alternative, like Kirk Jorgensen, we should do everything we can to see that he is elected. We should even consider doing whatever it may take to pull the leadership of the San Diego GOP back to reality and make them stop perpetuating the myth that this is no big deal because no one seems to care very much.
We should be voting and working for candidates based in principle and values, not electability or on assumptions about voter opinions. Our job, if you’ll allow the presumptuousness, is to educate voters about why issues are important. If most voters understood the economic impact of abortion – that we now have killed off the generation who was supposed to help support our economy – they would likely view their decision in a different light. They would have the perfect “secular” explanation for what they know to be true according to their own conscience; that candidates who support abortion do not deserve their vote – or yours – and certainly NOT the endorsement of the pro-life Republican Party.
As I read this I wonder if a pro-life culture is actually an end goal. Any student of history can plainly see that cultural change is a process, never achieved overnight. Moving toward a more conservative culture means incremental change, exactly what the Democrats have done for decades to achieve popular progressivism and a liberal monopoly on academia. I believe my Pope expressed a similar idea in his discussion of condom use in the prevention of disease. Moving toward a more Holy way of life is a righteous path and there are lesser sins. Has there been some significant progress in changing the culture using the present methods? Is it not more sinful to ignore stagnation in the movement, or arguably backsliding where our culture is even more accepting of abortion? I think the pro-life movement needs to think more strategically if they want to reach their ultimate goals.
” I think the pro-life movement needs to think more strategically if they want to reach their ultimate goals.”
Well said, Leah. The pro-Life movement understood this in 1976 when they backed Reagan (the Governor who essentially opened the floodgates by signing the Therapeutic Abortion Act into Law). Reagan turned out to be the most ardent pro-Life public official some 20 years after he signed that Law.
There are two good pro-Life candidates in the CD52 race and, because of Prop 14, Republicans could technically have two in the November run off . Those candidates need money and volunteers.
I can think of a lot worse problems than having an endorsed Republican versus a non-endorsed Republican in November.
Author
“Maybe the mocking isn’t of evangelical Christians,”
I have never mocked Evangelical Christians and don’t really know the gentleman who accused me of such a thing.
“Hypocrisy Questioned” , here is the Gallop Poll I was speaking of stating the majority of Americans are now pro-life.
Why don’t you use your name? Id like to know who i’m conversing with. Thx.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx
“Hypocrisy Questioned, here is another encouraging article stating that abortion rates are at the lowest point since 1973.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-abortion-rate-at-lowest-point-since-1973/2014/02/02/8dea007c-8a9b-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html
sure would appreciate knowing your name. thx.
MM,
You really need to go down to the question toward the end of the gallop poll – where only 20% (remarkably stable) believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
Beyond (as I have done in other threads) the civil liberty issues involved with living in a country that tried to enforce a complete prohibition, it is simply foolish to believe that you can cut against 80% of the public on this issue and win.
Mary,
Thanks for sharing the polls and I am glad to see that abortion rates are going down. I do not know anyone, no matter how pro-choice, who is actually pro-abortion.
One sobering note in the poll at the bottom of the page: Only 20% believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances while 25% believe it should be legal in all circumstances and 52% take the middle position of legal in some circumstances.
As for my anonymity, I would prefer to keep it. It allows me to comment on more subjects and not have to be politically correct with my opinions.
HQ, thanks for your comments. Looks to me that this country is moving in the right direction re abortion. Godspeed, mm
Excerpt from the 2013 Gallup Poll showing majority of Americans are pro-life:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/10/gallup-58-percent-of-americans-oppose-all-or-most-abortions-n1592505
1) On the nominal “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice” question, pro-lifers narrowly outnumber the other side, 48-45.
(2) Fully 58 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, or only permitted in “a few.” Just 39 percent say the practice should be legal in “all” or “most” circumstances.
(3) On that same question, 57 percent of women adopt a pro-life view; 40 percent adopt the more doctrinaire “pro-choice” position, which is supposed to be the official stance of their entire gender.
(4) Millenials (aged 18-34) are the most likely group to believe abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances. Overall, 57 percent of these young voters select one of the pro-life options.
(5) By partisan break-down, 59 percent of independents oppose abortion in all or most cases, as do 43 percent of Democrats. The pro-life positions are adopted by 78 percent of Republicans.
(6) Seventy-four percent of the public is paying little or no attention to the trial of late-term abortionist and accused serial killer Kermit Gosnell. A paltry 25 percent are paying “very” or “somewhat” close attention.
(7) Pluralities believe the media isn’t giving the Gosnell case sufficient coverage, though a majority admits it doesn’t know enough to say either way. Kermit Gosnell is still an unknown among most of the populace. One wonders how people’s abortion views might shift if they were made aware of the horrors that took place at his Philadelphia clinic.
The debate between BB and FF (bottom-line being how much should we support the national party platform) begs the question: if the GOP believes in states and individual rights why is it so centralized in terms of ideology?
Mary,
How is possible that 58% say abortion should be ” illegal in all circumstances” if only 48% say they are “pro-life?”
Elliott,
I think you will find that most people are in favor of individual rights when arguing AGAINST something someone else proposed and more in favor of centralized planning when arguing FOR something they proposed.