Fred Thompson is Pro-Choice

I've said all along that Fred Thompson's pro-life credentials were shaky. Now he's admitted it in an interview with Tim Russert on Meet The Press this weekend. The exchange meanders quite a bit - here is the full transcript if you want to read it for yourself. The abortion part begins at the bottom of page 3.

The upshot is that Thompson sees abortion as a "states rights" issue. He says he wants Roe vs. Wade overturned, but he doesn't want the states to outlaw abortion. He opposes the GOP platform, which has called for Human Life Amendment to the Constitution since the Reagan years. Thompson nevertheless maintains that he is "pro-life" because he will do what he can as president to keep the federal government out of it.

It got really weird when Russert pinned down Thompson about when life begins.

MR. RUSSERT: So while you believe that life begins at conception, the taking of a human life?

MR. THOMPSON: Yes, I, I, I, I do.

MR. RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise?

MR. THOMPSON: I do not think that you can have a, a, a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially—you can’t have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that, which potentially would take young, young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we’re going to put them in jail to do that. I just don’t think that that’s the right thing to do. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I’ve got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I’m not totally comfortable with, but that’s the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind.

Follow this, if you can. Thompson says he is pro-life, but he has to be forced into admitting the obvious fact that an unborn child is actually a living person, but he still would oppose the federal government doing anything to help anyone kill this living person, but he wants the Supreme Court to make it easier for states to outlaw this act, but he personally hopes the states will keep it legal so young girls in "extreme situations" won't get put in jail. Sound confusing? Here's the summary: he is pro-choice.

In fact, this whole "state's rights" argument was settled quite convincingly by the Civil War. Thompson is making the same argument that Southern slaveholders did prior to 1865. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Allowing doctors to kill children for whatever reason the mom thinks is sufficient does not even remotely qualify as "due process of law." If Fred Thompson thinks life begins at conception - as he told Russert - his constitutional duty as president will be to defend it from the time of conception. He just said on national TV that he intend to ignore his oath of office.

Moreover, if Thompson loves federalism so much he'll have to take some radically unpopular positions as president. Since the national government, in his view, has no business stopping abortion, it must also has no business building highways, regulating drugs, helping with disaster relief, imposing safety standards for toys, and a zillion other things. To be consistent with the stand he takes on abortion he'll have to dismantle about half the federal government. This wouldn't be such a bad thing, but Thompson won't do it. Why? Because he doesn't really believe in federalism. He is using the concept as a convenient dodge to have it both ways on abortion. He cites federalism when it helps him, and ignores it when it doesn't. He's a typical politician, in other words.

As a purely political matter, this is probably a smart position for Thompson to take. He's seen Giuliani get ahead in the polls by saying he is personally against abortion but won't do anything to stop it. Both of them know that most voters won't look very deeply into their positions, so the goal is to stay vague and be all things to all people. It may work well enough to put one of them in the White House. We'll know in a year.

Now it is quite true that there is little the president can directly do about abortion, other than appointing judges who will, we hope, return the issue to the states to decide. I think it matters that the president is pro-life because it tells us other things about the way he will govern. As noted above, Thompson admits that a fetus is a living person - but he still wants to let such persons be killed without due process of law. What other categories of people will he refuse to protect? Which other parts of the Constitution is he prepared to ignore?

Since making prudent judgments about these things is a big part of being president, we need someone who holds the right principles. Fred Thompson clearly does not.

More from Lydia at What's Wrong with the World.

Is Huckabee the One?

With Fred Thompson proving to be less attractive than some people thought, and Sam Brownback now out of the race, many social conservatives are turning their attention to Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor is firmly pro-life and pushes all the right buttons on other cultural issues. As a Baptist minister he is also comfortable talking in religious terms. He wowed the audience at the recent Values Voter Summit and did surprisingly well in the straw vote of attendees.

Not so fast, said John Fund in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Betsy Hagan, Arkansas director of the conservative Eagle Forum and a key backer of his early runs for office, was once "his No. 1 fan." She was bitterly disappointed with his record. "He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal," she says. "Just like Bill Clinton he will charm you, but don't be surprised if he takes a completely different turn in office."

Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum, is even more blunt. "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles," she says. "Yet some of the same evangelicals who sold us on George W. Bush as a 'compassionate conservative' are now trying to sell us on Mike Huckabee."

The business community in Arkansas is split. Some praise Mr. Huckabee's efforts to raise taxes to repair roads and work with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. Free-market advocates are skeptical. "He has zero intellectual underpinnings in the conservative movement," says Blant Hurt, a former part owner of, and columnist for, Arkansas Business magazine. "He's hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases, and presided over state spending going up more than twice the inflation rate." MORE

David Kuo came to Huckabee's defense, suggesting Fund may have had other motives.

Well let's think about this. He loves the spotlight? Check. He was a preacher and is now a politician - he definitely believes in himself.

An economic and environmental liberal? Yeah, he only cut taxes and fees 100 times totaling more than $375 million. He only left a state surplus of nearly $850 million. What a liberal disaster he is.

This is a pure hit piece with a curious number of quotes from Mitt Romney backers. MORE

My view is we could probably do worse than Huckabee, but I can't get excited about him. Maybe I will learn more and change my mind. For now, my vote in the GOP primary still goes to Ron Paul.

You Must See Bella

I am not in the habit of recommending movies I haven't yet seen. Having heard several interviews with the producers and rave reviews from people who were at pre-screenings, however, I'm excited about a new film called Bella. It opens next weekend, October 26.

Bella is described as "a true love story that shows how one day in New York City changed three people's live forever." The three producers - Alejandro Monteverde, Leo Severino, and Eduardo Verastagui - seem to be men of great faith who want to build an oasis in Hollywood, with artistic and entertaining films that touch people in profound ways. Bella won the People's Choice Award at the Toronto Film Festival, so it's clearly not "preachy" or overtly religious. It is just a good movie, with a subtle yet powerful pro-life message.

Leticia at Causa Nostrae Laetitae has chronicled the amazing story of this film and its makers. Bella is a miracle in itself, as the producers overcame numerous obstacles that should have been insurmountable. Read Leticia's review and other articles here.

Bella opens October 26 in a limited release of 31 cities. If it does well in the first week or two, other theaters around the nation will be encouraged to show it. So it's very important that as many people as possible see Bella in its opening days. Click here to see if it is playing in your city. I'll post more thoughts after I see it for myself.

Bella Official Site
Yahoo! Movies Bella Page
iMDB Page
Rotten Tomatoes Page
Bella trailer on YouTube

Does Poverty Cause Abortion?

Surveys of women who have had abortions reveal that many of them felt they simply "couldn't afford" to have a child. Darwin responds to a Christian blogger who made this argument:

We live in the most wealthy country in the world, with one of the highest abortion rates in the world. Is our problem really that we're not wealthy enough?

Not only the average citizen of our country, but the poor of our country are far, far wealthier than they were 100 years ago. And yet, as we have become wealthier, the institution of the family has collapsed, illegitimacy has become a pandemic in the lower economic reaches of society, divorce has become commonplace, abortion is common -- used by some parts of society as a last resort, and by others almost as backup-birth control. (The stats I've seen on abortion repeat customers are pretty terrifying.)

And yet the problem, we are told, is that our country is still too poor to have a lower abortion rate? The claim is, quite frankly, so ludicrous that it's hard to believe the author even means it seriously. Sadly, though, I think he does. MORE

I agree - the idea is simply laughable. The fact that people take it seriously says a lot about the rampant materialism of Americans. When these women - and the men who impregnate them - say "I can't afford to have a child," what they really mean is "I can't afford to have a child without giving up my life of fun, frolic, and freedom."

Contrast this with of Third World countries where people who have far less than even the poorest Americans continue to view children as a blessing, and do whatever it takes to care for them. For that matter, right here in America we have parents who figure out ways to afford five, ten or more children on a typical middle-class income.

So the question is not really about money; it is a question of priorities. People whose highest priority is their own pleasure naturally regard children as a burden to be avoided. That's why we have DINKs and pampered pooches. Children are, quite literally, the future. If your focus is on the present, it's much easier to flush your future down the drain.

Fr. Corapi 9-11 Video

Earlier this week I posted the transcript of Fr. John Corapi's 9-11 message. I have since found the video version on YouTube. Click here if you don't see it embedded below.

9-11: The Approach of Midnight

9-11: Six Years Later

The Approach of Midnight

by Rev. John A. Corapi

Six years ago on September 11, 2001, time stood still in a spasm of black smoke, death, and destruction. It had never happened before, but now it had, proving definitively that it could happen. An era ended. Indeed, we would never be the same.

For a time, it seemed to those still possessed of any ability to see spiritual things at all that perhaps the world might correct it’s blind and headlong flight over a precipice and into a moral abyss. People rushed to churches, synagogues, and mosques. There were long lines for confession in the Catholic churches. Others made their amends with God and each other in whatever way they could, not sure what was next, not taking any chances.

The very heart of the pornography and abortion industries suffered a near fatal case of cash register arrest. Close proximity to death tends to bring reality into focus.

Time heals all things, it is said. Yes, and in this case even moments of moral lucidity and spiritual clarity were “healed” and replaced by business as usual. Mankind has a short memory despite the constant reminders of history.

In the six years since 911 has a society crippled by ease, debilitated by political correctness, and close to death from the moral malaise that has plagued it for decades learned anything? Apparently not, for today even most religious leaders are loath to link 911 with the reality of sin. The word itself has been exiled, much like God himself, from our schools, often even from churches, and, indeed, from our very consciousness.

The fact is that we reap what we sow. What goes around, comes around. The greatest nation on the earth has the greatest moral responsibility. Indeed, “to the man given much, much will be required. To the man given more, more will be required.” We were entrusted with the welfare of the world, and all too often the trust was betrayed. Under the specious pretext of freedom—which was really license—we became purveyors of pornography, abortion, greed, deceit, murder and mayhem.

The clock is ticking and midnight is approaching. Illuminated by the false light of affluence and ease, success and power, we became blind to the darkness, and yet midnight approaches, with all of the certainty of time itself.

Have we learned anything in the past six years, or are we yet more blind, more deaf, more steeped in sin? Actions have consequences. 911 was a warning shot fired over the bow of a sick society. The warning has gone largely unheeded.

The clock is ticking. Midnight is approaching. Prayer is now the only thing that will avail change, so pray my dear friends, pray like your life and the life of all you hold dear is at stake.

For it is, it is.

God bless you and protect you and yours,

Rev. John Corapi
September 11, 2007
Six years later, and counting

Click here for video of this speech

Wrong Twin Aborted

When prenatal tests revealed that one of her unborn twins had Down's Syndrome, a woman in Italy decided to abort the "defective" child and keep the healthy one. Doctors proceeded to abort the wrong child, apparently because the unwitting masses of fetal tissue changed position between the time of the ultrasound and the abortion procedure.

Now, some people would have interpreted this horrible event as a sign from above and amended their life. This mother did not; upon being informed of the mistake, she returned to the hospital and had the remaining child aborted, too. She now says her life has been ruined, and I'm sure it is. So were two other lives. We can trust they are now in a better place - no thanks to their earthly parents.

While all abortion is unacceptable, abortions undertaken for the specific purpose of killing children who are somehow disabled is particularly disgusting. People with Down's Syndrome are still people. If we permit people to be killed before birth because they are inconvenient and imperfect, by what logic do we forbid them from being killed after birth?

You may recall a similar case last March, also in Italy, where an infant thought to be deformed was aborted, only to be born alive and without the defect that inspired the abortion in the first place. The child died after six days.

Such efforts at population purity are nothing less than eugenics. This same mentality allowed the Nazis to define entire categories of people as non-human and systematically exterminate them. It's all a big word game. "We value all human life," they will say, without being too specific about how they define "human." For example, will these organisms be human? How will we know?

Think it can't happen here? Wrong; it already does. Watch this video. It is the only time I've ever seen Bill O'Reilly rendered speechless.

Hat tip: Leticia

Fred Thompson Watch V

As previously noted herein, non-candidate for president Fred Thompson worked as a lobbyist on behalf of a pro-abortion group in the early 1990s. This remains a problem for his non-campaign.

First, this was clumsily handled from the beginning, with his staff at first issuing a flat denial any such thing every happened. From there the story progressed to "maybe I did" to "If I did it doesn't matter" to "I did and I'm proud of it." Here is the latest version:

"Don't confuse the lawyer with the client," Thompson said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It has nothing to do with one's political views. Lawyering is a profession but it's also a business."

Thompson has come under fire for representing - among others - abortion rights activists, raising questions about his own position as he prepares to enter the contest for the Republican presidential nomination.

"I'm not representing an issue," said Thompson. "I'm representing a client who has an issue."

Thompson, a lawyer, compared his work lobbying to that of a lawyer who represents someone accused of a crime.

"I've represented people accused of crimes," Thompson said. "These are people who deserved representation." MORE

Indeed, people who are accused of crimes deserve representation. This is not exactly the same thing as lobbying the government for political favors. Anyway, neither lawyers nor lobbyists are required to represent everyone who asks them for help. If, in fact, Fred Thompson was willing to lobby on behalf of anybody with cash no matter how much he disagreed with their cause, then the main thing this tells us is that he will do anything if the price is right, ethical principles notwithstanding.

Think about it another way: suppose in the early 1990s Fred Thompson had lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of, say, the Palestinian Liberation Organization? Or Osama bin Ladin? Saddam Hussein? Saudi princes? Open-borders advocates? The Ku Klux Klan? Greenpeace? Would conservatives be so quick to grant absolution on the basis that he was "just representing a client?" Certainly not.

Abortion is a non-negotiable issue for me. There are some things to like about Fred Thompson, but, for me, nothing else will matter until I know that he believes life begins at conception and must be given full legal protection from that very moment.

So far, all I've seen are vague statements from Thompson saying he is "pro-life." Like most politicians, he leaves himself plenty of wiggle room so he can try to be all things to all people. I've been fooled before and it isn't going to happen again. He needs to be specific.

This is one of many reasons Ron Paul remains my candidate of choice. Here is a cool test that helps identify which candidates match your opinions on the issues. Try it out.

Ron Paul on Life

Here is presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul speaking about the relationship between life and liberty. The video is about ten minutes long. You need to watch it.

Hat tip: Bro. Robin.

Fred Thompson Watch IV

It appears that The Last Best Hope Of The GOP may be stumbling. First we have this story from MSNBC which says fundraising has slowed way down. It also notes there is chaos in the non-campaign non-organization, with Mrs. Fred Thompson #2 taking a very active role. Are they two for the price of one? We so loved that with the Clintons, remember.

Next, in an apparent bid to rejuvenate things Thompson has brought in former Senator Spencer Abraham as a senior non-campaign non-official. Some very vocal Thompson backers are very disturbed at this, citing two reasons. Spencer Abraham is of Arab-American descent (though he is not a Muslim) and has apparently been supportive of some Islamic groups. Furthermore, as a Senator Abraham was on the wrong side of the immigration argument, wanting to open the borders even more.

Of course, presidential candidates don't always agree with their aides on every single issue, so the problematic Abraham views may not reflect what Thompson thinks. The problem is we can't know this for sure because Thompson has not given detailed answers to questions on immigration policy, or much of anything else. He's a blank slate on which everyone projects what they want to see.

Finally, the controversy about Thompson's lobbying work on behalf of a pro-abortion organization isn't going away. In fact, his lawyer-like attempts to first deny the story, then spin it in his favor when the evidence became clear are hard to square with the straight-shooter, regular-guy image he wishes to project. This story has video of Thompson flip-flopping on TV.

I continue to maintain that if you like George W. Bush, you'll love Fred Thompson. There doesn't appear to be a dime's worth of difference between them in any matter of public policy. If anyone has seen stories of Fred actually disagreeing with anything Bush has done, please tell me. I haven't seen it.

Bro. Robin has a nice round-up of all the GOP candidates that is worth reading. Here is what he says about Thompson. (He doesn't link to back-up for all these positions and I haven't verified them. It all sounds about right, thought.)

Fred Thompson: Sorry folks, the kindly actor you’ve come to know through the TV series "Law and Order" is not who you’d like him to be. Despite the polls (AP/ IPSOS 6/9/07) which tout Thompson as a darling among conservatives, most are apparently ignorant of his political pedigree. Like his friend, McCain and other GOP leaders, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a main group behind the North American Union.

Thompson’s "Pro-Life" position in his own words: "Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of the pregnancy."

After 8 years as a US Senator from Tennessee, Thompson racked up some votes that should be cause for concern. He voted YES:

1. in support of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act- the law to silence grassroots conservative groups.
2. to expand NAFTA. Modeled after the European Common Market, NAFTA was a first step toward open borders in North America and the North American Union.
3. on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
4. on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
5. for permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
6. for funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
7. to fund the GOP Medicare prescription drug benefit debacle.

Thompson also seems to believe in a robust military presence worldwide and apparently advocates continued US military involvement in Iraq."(Freemarket news.com) Prior to his run for U.S. Senate, he was a Washington lobbyist for 20 years.

Why anybody who is a thinking conservative would support Fred Thompson is beyond me. If this is the best we can do, I'm not sure Hillary would be that much worse.

Fred Thompson Watch III

We now have confirmation of recent reports that soon-to-be presidential candidate Fred Thompson represented a pro-abortion group as a lobbyist in the early 1990s. Billing records from his law firm show that Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working on behalf of the group, including lengthy consultations with its president and three conversations with Bush Administration officials.

How will this effect Thompson's chances? Hard to say. Abortion appears to have faded as an issue for this cycle. There are people, like me, for whom it is non-negotiable, but most people appear more concerned with the Iraq war, terrorism, and immigration. For Fred this is a good thing because he looks increasingly shaky on life issues. I'll happily eat my words if Thompson will just give us a forthright explanation of all the conflicting statements he's made about abortion, but it hasn't happened yet.

This episode could still hurt Thompson, however, because it undermines the straight-talking next-Reagan image he wishes to project. He went from denial to don't recall to maybe to doesn't matter in less than two weeks. He's looking a lot like somebody who has something to hide.

In fact, he does have something to hide. Fred Thompson is the consummate Washington insider. He's played both sides of the fence with the #1 objective being his own enrichment and advancement. In this he has a lot in common with most politicians, and he may well be the best we can hope for on the GOP side this time. I'm still mystified by the reflexive enthusiasm that some people have for Thompson, though. As far as I can tell he is nothing but a ho-hum, mainstream Republican. If not for his acting experience I'm not sure anyone would give him a second look.

Hat tip: Poliblog

Smart Kids

Leticia from Causa Nostrae Laetitiae has this interesting story from her time as a public school teacher.

I was teaching bilingual US history. We were studying how a bill becomes law. The class was Congress, and as, the President, I could veto any bill they passed. Now, what kind of law would you expect teenagers to pass? Lower the drinking age, perhaps?

The first law was open immigration. OK, that I expected. The second law was to outlaw abortion, giving a life sentence to the mother, and the death penalty to the abortionist. This passed 29 to 1, with the only 'nea' coming from Maria, who was the only student from Europe, not Latin America. "Maria, you are intelligent, why can't you see that abortion is murder?" her classmate argued. I told the students not to listen to their other teachers, they already knew MUCH more than they. MORE

The immigrant kids sound like they have a much better moral compass than a lot of native-born Americans. Unfortunately it won't stay with them for long. This is one area where assimilation into our society will not be to their benefit.

I highlighted another of Leticia's stories here a few weeks ago.

UPDATE 7/2/07: I wish to clarify that I am NOT in favor of prison for women who have abortions. Maybe in some cases, with women who are very irresponsible and have repeated abortions, some kind of sanction would be in order. Most of the women who have abortions are confused and misled. Those who perform abortions for money, however, are nothing less than murderers in my opinion, and should be treated as such.

Fred Thompson Unplugged II

See Fred Thompson Unplugged for the beginning of this story.

So what about the issues? Is Fred Thompson really as conservative as we are told? Failing that, is he at least better than any of the other candidates?

First, it needs to be remembered that in 2000 most people, including me, thought George W. Bush was at least mildly conservative. We were wrong. I, for one, am determined not to be fooled again. For this reason I am not inclined to give anyone benefit of the doubt this time around. Rudy Giuliani has already taken himself off the list for a variety of reasons.

As regular readers know, my top two issues are Life and War. So we'll start with these then move on to some other subjects.

Abortion: Thompson says he wants the Roe vs. Wade decision reversed and abortion regulation returned to the states. He likes Supreme Court justices such as Scalia, Thomas and Alito, and would appoint others who are like them. As Senator he voted a consistent pro-life position, including in favor of the partial birth abortion ban.

This is, I think, the minimum we should demand from a presidential candidate. But I'd also like to go beyond the bare essentials. I want a president who respects life enough to oppose abortion morally as well as legally. Here Thompson's record is a little murkier:

• On a 1996 Christian Coalition survey, he checked "opposed" to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution "protecting the sanctity of human life."

• He included a handwritten clarification: "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people."

• In 1996, asked by the Memphis group FLARE (Family, Life, America, Responsible Education Under God Inc.) if human life begins at conception, Thompson circled "N/A." Source

From this it appears that Thompson is anti-Roe but not personally pro-life. As recently as 1996, he wasn't willing to say that life begins at conception. Maybe he's changed is mind since then but I haven't heard about it if so.

Furthermore, the combination of his statements about reversing Roe and that abortion should not be criminalized is troubling. If Fred Thompson were a governor or state legislator, he would apparently want abortion to be legal in his state. He hasn't said this explicitly, as far as I know, but it is the only conclusion I can draw from his record.

My impression is that Thompson is more interested in preserving state's rights than in preventing abortion. This was, of course, the same argument made by 19th-century politicians who wanted to preserve slavery in the South. Fortunately for black Americans, Abraham Lincoln felt otherwise.

Thompson's zeal for Federalism also seems selective. He didn't make any great efforts to, say, eliminate federal highway funds for Tennessee. In the Senate he happily voted for all kinds of intrusions by Washington into matters that properly belong to the states. He seems to bring out the federalist argument when he needs political cover for being on both sides of an issue.

Given all this, Thompson is not exactly what I would call "pro-life." He is certainly preferable to Giuliani in this department, but that's not saying much.

Iraq War and Foreign Policy: Thompson generally supports President Bush on Iraq and terrorist-related issues. In 2003 he was strongly in favor of pre-emptive war against Iraq, and he has not backed down from that position. He now seems eager to move on to Iran.

Just this week Thompson gave a speech in London that nicely outlined his foreign policy beliefs. Daniel Larison has a masterful deconstruction of the remarks so I will not go into detail. Suffice to say that if you like the global situation Bush has got us into, you can count on Fred Thompson to deliver more of the same.

Campaign Finance reform: Thompson supported the 2002 McCain-Feingold legislation that did practically nothing to reduce the role of money in political campaigns. It did, however, make it more difficult for citizens to promote their political views publicly and is regarded by some as a major infringement on first Amendment rights. McCain-Feingold's main accomplishment was to give billionaires like George Soros unprecedented political influence through "527" groups.

Clinton Impeachment: At President Clinton's impeachment trial before the Senate in 1998, Thompson voted to acquit on the perjury charge. He issued a long statement explaining his reasons, which I find unpersuasive. Here is a good summary. Basically, Thompson agreed Clinton lied to the grand jury but did not think it was grounds to remove him from office.

Thompson seems to have a soft spot for perjurers, since he's been lending his name to fund-raising efforts for the Scooter Libby defense. The best I can make of it is that Fred Thompson thinks it is fine for government officials to lie under oath, at least sometimes. It is unclear on what basis he decides which lies can be excused and which should not.

In any case, Thompson's vote in the Clinton impeachment resulted in a 50-50 tie on the perjury charge. Clinton was in no danger of being removed from office, which takes 67 votes. But the even split prevented even the partial victory of a majority finding that the president had committed perjury.

Other issues: There is a lot more I could say but I think you get the idea. The closer you look, the less Fred Thompson resembles the "next Ronald Reagan" image he wants us to accept. I'm listing a few links below with more background.

In the next installment of Fred Thompson Unplugged, we will look at his interesting personal life. Click here.

Fred Thompson On The Issues
Thompson's 1994 Issue Positions
The Thompson Factor
Wikipedia Entry: Fred Thompson

The Giuliani Christians

Lightning struck the Republican debate in New Hampshire last night, literally, and it had the pleasant effect of silencing Rudy Giuliani's microphone just as he was trying to explain his position on abortion. Clearly God has a sense of humor. Video

Regulars readers will know that the idea of Giuliani becoming president is anathema to me. Moreover, I'm mystified how otherwise conservative, pro-life, pro-family Christians can support him. Via Carl Olson, I found this enlightening article on the subject.

A number of Giuliani’s fans in the Fourth Estate, such as Cal Thomas, Richard Brookhiser, and the editorial writers for the neoconservative New York Post, have revealed some of the reasons for the Religious Right’s attachment. Religious Protestants have come to view the issues that Giuliani has emphasized, “national security” and “fighting terror,” as more crucial than those family issues they stressed in the past. Thomas, who is himself a professing Christian but with a neoconservative, Zionist twist, stated the opinion on March 13 that such prioritizing indicates a definite “maturing” among his coreligionists. This seems to be the general view of the establishment conservative press in the U.S., which remains agog over Giuliani’s candidacy and his stand on terrorism.

The problem is that nothing in Giuliani’s past, except for rhetorical posturing, would suggest that he is especially equipped to deal with international terrorists. Although violent crime in New York City declined under his administration, the same general trend could be observed in other American cities, and that trend might be related to demographic factors and to the building and use of prisons as much as to Giuliani’s vaunted toughness. And there is not necessarily a connection between getting criminals and derelicts off the streets in the Big Apple and apprehending international terrorists. The two would seem to involve different skills...

Since the younger generation of neoconservatives tends to be either on the Left on social issues or totally indifferent to them, and, like Giuliani, makes no secret of welcoming illegal immigrants into the country, Giuliani’s domestic stands pose no problem for them. The Religious Right is going with the conservative media flow by rallying around Giuliani, playing its long-established role as supplier of Republican foot soldiers and movement-conservative groupies.

But it must be stressed that the issue that has come to trump all other evangelical concerns is fighting the war on terror. Cal Thomas has extolled his fellow evangelicals to recognize the big picture: “Character is seen as less important than who can face the multiple challenges facing the nation”—specifically, the struggle against international terror. From the evangelical perspective, this confrontation with terror is so intertwined with other issues that it serves as a kind of shorthand. Israel, Zionism, and the glorification of American democracy as a world model are all at least implicit in the evangelical conception of the struggle against terror—one that Giuliani is imagined to be able to lead better than any other presidential contender.

I am deeply afraid that the Christians who think Rudy will keep them "safe" will turn out to be sheep led to slaughter. I recommend these people read Psalm 146:3. "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation." As citizens in a democracy we are obliged vote for whoever we think is best qualified. Yet we must not fool ourselves into thinking that any earthly leader will be our savior.

Let's be blunt: why exactly does our nation deserve to be kept safe? Check out the Abortometer on my sidebar. Currently, almost 5.5 million babies have been killed in the United States since the beginning of the Iraq war. These are real deaths. They aren't hypothetical casualties of a war that may or may not reach our shores again.

If God wants to let Islamic terrorists to blow up a few American cities (which I think is entirely possible), neither Rudy Giuliani nor anyone else will be able to stop it. Conversely, if God chooses to spare us from destruction He can easily use whoever we put in the White House to do it.

This being the case, our goal as Christians should be to demonstrate that we as a nation have repented and should be delivered from the fate we really deserve. Is electing as our leader someone who is, like Rudy, morally confused about abortion, homosexual behavior, marital fidelity, torture, crime, and war, likely to convince the Lord to look with favor upon us? I think not.

What the Giuliani Christians are really saying is they put a bigger value on their own hides than they do the lives of millions of innocents. They are making the same mistake that the children of Israel made several times in the Old Testament. Every time, God found ways to get their attention.

He will do so again. Count on it.

Giuliani, Abortion, and Morality

To amplify on yesterday's post, Rudy Giuliani likes to say that he "hates" abortion, he thinks it is immoral, and he would always recommend pregnant women consider adoption instead. His political position, however, is that abortion is a matter of private choice for each woman.

Rudy is not the only one with this kind of logic. Think through it, though, and it makes no sense. We do not think this way in other life-related matters. If Rudy said "I hate murder, it's immoral, I always recommend people find other ways to resolve their differences, but ultimately it's up to each potential murderer to decide," we would all think he was insane.

Moral questions can never be "private" because they always affect other people. Even if you assume a fetus is not truly alive, what about the father's rights? Why must he be ignored? There are also potential grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles? Don't we all have a stake in each other's existence?

Abraham Lincoln had a different attitude. Suppose he had said "I hate slavery, I think slavery is immoral, but ultimately it is up to each slaveowner to decide whether to free his slaves or not." This was the position taken by many politicians of the time.

Fortunately for black Americans, Lincoln disagreed. He said "I hate slavery, slavery is immoral, and I'm going to do something about it." With the 13th Amendment, he set out to impose his morality on the rest of the country. We are a better nation because of it.

If you think there is nothing immoral about abortion, then you have at least taken a logically consistent position in opposing legal restrictions on it. To say, as Giuliani does, that abortion is immoral but that neither federal nor state governments should do anything about it, makes no sense at all. It reveals an intellectual schizophrenia that leaves one morally confused, at best.

We've had enough morally confused people in the White House. Presidents make moral decisions for other people all the time. We need someone who can think clearly when doing so.

Another view

Passing The Test

You must read this story.

Unable to conceive naturally, Elizabeth and Matt decided to adopt a baby from China. Within hours of seeing the 1-year-old girl for the first time, they noticed problems. Big problems: a tumor, spina bifida, brain damage, paraplegia.

We have a solution, said the Chinese orphanage officials: just pick out a different baby.

Months before, we had been presented with forms asking which disabilities would be acceptable in a prospective adoptee — what, in other words, did we think we could handle: H.I.V., hepatitis, blindness? We checked off a few mild problems that we knew could be swiftly corrected with proper medical care. As Matt had written on our application: “This will be our first child, and we feel we would need more experience to handle anything more serious.”

Now we faced surgeries, wheelchairs, colostomy bags. I envisioned our home in San Diego with ramps leading to the doors. I saw our lives as being utterly devoted to her care. How would we ever manage?

Yet how could we leave her? Had I given birth to a child with these conditions, I wouldn’t have left her in the hospital. Though a friend would later say, “Well, that’s different,” it wasn’t to me.

I pictured myself boarding the plane with some faceless replacement child and then explaining to friends and family that she wasn’t Natalie, that we had left Natalie in China because she was too damaged, that the deal had been a healthy baby and she wasn’t.

How would I face myself? How would I ever forget? I would always wonder what happened to Natalie.

I knew this was my test, my life’s worth distilled into a moment. I was shaking my head “No” before they finished explaining. We didn’t want another baby, I told them. We wanted our baby, the one sleeping right over there. “She’s our daughter,” I said. “We love her.”

"She's our daughter." What amazing love. There's more to the story; read it here.

Now, compare this to the parents who, based on nothing more than grainy ultrasound images, decide that their unborn child is not worthy of life and must be killed. Such so-called parents delude themselves into thinking that "it's for the best." No, it's not for the best. Yet people who would never be so rude as to reject a friend's gift are quick to reject the greatest gift of all: life itself.

Elizabeth and Matt passed their test. Will we pass ours?

Pro-Life, Sometimes

For many women and their partners, the decision to terminate a pregnancy after a prenatal diagnosis of a serious genetic defect can be harrowing, often coming after a painful assessment of their own emotional and financial resources.

And there is widespread support for such an option: 70 percent of Americans said they believe that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion if there is a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby, according to a 2006 poll conducted by the National Opinion Research Center. MORE

I can believe this. While other polls show most Americans call themselves pro-life, few have really thought it through and adopted a consistent view on the value of life.

Let's re-phrase what the 70% referenced above are saying.

"We believe life begins at conception, and all life must be protected - except for those lives that in our opinion may have a defect that could make life unpleasant. Such unborn life can be killed at the mother's discretion. However the mother's discretion ends when the defective baby is born. After then this life, while still unpleasant, must be protected."

If this seems to you like a pretty incoherent position, you can go to the head of the class. Once we start down the road of saying that some lives are worthy and others are not, it is very hard to know where to stop. How serious does the defect need to be before we are willing to execute the baby? Who decides? Why not wait until the baby is born so you can be sure what is wrong, and then kill it?

Life is life. If you believe it begins at conception, you have to protect it from that point forward. Otherwise you will slide down a slippery slope that ends in death - not yours, maybe, but the death of a human being. The victim won't even get the "due process" we give to condemned murderers.

If you're in the 70%, think about it. Think hard.

Truth To Power

Leticia at Causa Nostrae Laetitiae recounts a conversation she had with her Congressperson and an audience of retirees. She brought along her daughter who has Down's Syndrome. I think this is a wonderful story for Mother's Day - from a mother defending not only her only child, but others as well.

Right after the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban vote (he voted against the ban) I showed up a packed meeting he had with the wealthy senior citizens of Westhampton. I brought Christina, a toddler at that time, and they were vociferously detailing their worries about Social Security when we entered the room. What do they use their checks for, to pay their fees at the country club? I wondered. I thought they would never calm down enough for me to speak to the Congressman about abortion.

Then, Christina did an interesting thing, she began to giggle. A wave of attention, none of it positive, was focused on us, and angry eyes bored into us. I seized my advantage, and burst into the conversation, "Congressman Bishop, your constituents here seem to be upset by my daughter's laughter, so let me speak my piece, and I'll be out of your way."

Congressman Bishop nodded, and I brought Christina with me to the front of the room, partially out of fear of the other people in the room, and as a helpful prop for my talk.

"This week, you voted against a ban on Partial Birth Abortion, and I wanted to let you know that 90% of unborn babies with Down Syndrome are aborted, many late term as it takes a while to see the amnio results and schedule the abortion. This means each year, thousands of children like my daughter here, are cruelly killed in this procedure. Don't you think that my daughter here deserves a chance to live like the rest of us did?"

The Congressman was dumbfounded, and fumbled for words, while an irate constituent screamed, "Why don't you shut up and sit down?!"

I turned to Congressman Bishop and asked him, "Is that your opinion as well, that I should shut up and sit down?"

Naturally, he denied this, and I went on, "I see what my daughter is capable of, and the joy she has brought into my family's life, and I want to urge you to vote pro-life next time, and give these children a chance to live their parents' lives."

Another bitter old man, couldn't take it any more, and challenged me, "You Catholics always say that, but are you willing to pay for these children once they're born?"

"I never said I was a Catholic, but I'm glad it shows! " I replied cheerily, "To answer your question, my husband and I support about 25 of his family members back in El Salvador, and we're convinced that's enough."

Congressman Bishop had barely uttered a sound and the crowd was getting outright hostile, so I took my cue, and wrapped it up saying, "I am a teacher, and look out on classrooms with 30% fewer students thanks to legalized abortion for the last 30 years. If you're worried about your Social Security checks, thank abortion.You've aborted the young workers who would be contributing to this bankrupt system."

By now the crowd was dangerously riled, and I sent out my parting shot over my shoulder, as I left the room, "You are all uncomfortable, because in your heart of hearts, you know I'm right!"

Bravo, Leticia. You are a brave woman and we need more like you. Check out her blog for more good stuff.

Lives Worth Living

I remember watching a movie when I was a kid, possibly War of the Worlds (the original, not the Tom Cruise remake) wherein alien monsters were attacking Earth. A family cowered in their home as the killing machines drew closer. The father had a pistol in one hand and his young son in the other.

As they heard they door opening, he cocked the gun. He did not aim for the invaders because he knew it was futile. He was, instead, about to shoot his wife and children to spare them the alien tortures. Fortunately it turned out to be human rescuers, not aliens. All survived. Nevertheless, the very thought that a father might do such a thing shook me up. Was he doing the right thing? What would my dad have done? What would I do?

These aren't easy questions until we remember that life is a gift from God. It is not our place to reject that gift; we must respect it until God brings it to its natural end. I will probably protest if He decides my Earthly ending is to be vaporized by aliens. What I should do, however, is have faith that He will be merciful and bring me to eternal life on the other side, whatever the manner of my death. Likewise for my family. To short-circuit that process is

I recalled that movie after writing this post about a real father killing some of his children under far less noble circumstances. I had also just written about the agonizing death of babies who survive abortion attempts. For some reason, this week there was a small flurry of similar stories. Here is a quick roundup for you.

The Anchoress has a long post about the baby Zeke. I linked to the family's slide show last month. Anchoress adds some touching thoughts and a personal story of her own.

Gazizza shares with us the story of a British clinic that screens embryos for cosmetic defects. Not life-threatening conditions, mind you, but things like hair color and squinty eyes. See something you don't like? Abort this one and try again. Parents who go to this place apparently thing it's worth killing several kids to make sure they get one who is just right. LifeSite covers the same story.

The New York Times had a story about prenatal testing for Down's Syndrome. Fully 90% of unborn children shown to have this condition are aborted. Families of Down's children are trying to fight back by sharing their own experience. Life is different, they say, but no less rewarding. Rod Dreher has more thoughts.

Fr. Erik at Orthometer links to an inspiring video about a baby born with severe disabilities.

Zippy at WWWW has some thoughts on why people choose abortion over adoption.

Finally, the Emilio Gonzalez case here in Austin is still ongoing. This week the baby's court-appointed guardian agreed with doctors that life support is futile. The next hearing is scheduled for May 30th. Austin Bishop Gregory Aymond also agrees. More of his thoughts here. National Review reports there may be more going on than meets the eye. Lot of comments after Mark Shea linked to the story.

My initial reaction on the Gonzalez case was that the mother should let him go. That was two months ago, and his condition seems to have neither improved nor worsened. So now I'm just confused. Please add Catarina Gonzales to your prayers. She needs peace and wisdom to discern the right course - as do we all.

The Happy Killers

This so-called "man" just killed his two sons, with their mother's approval. Here is what he had to say for himself and his wife: "We don't feel guilty. We don't feel ashamed. We're not even really sad..."

Cold-blooded murderer? Legally speaking, no. They weren't really his "sons" yet. They were just "midterm fetuses," two of four such objects that had mysteriously appeared in his wife's body. There being room for only two fetuses to co-exist safely, the other two had to go.

Did these fetuses just show up out of nowhere? No. In fact, these people went through enormous expense and effort to create their children via in-vitro fertilization (IVF). They allowed a doctor to implant five young humans in the mother's womb, gambling that not all would survive but that some would. Four did. Two of these would have to die in order for the others, and the mom, to avoid complications and possibly death.

Which two? He admits it was an agonizing choice. There were two boys and two girls to choose from. One of the deciding factors was that boys are more likely to have Down's Syndrome when the father is this man's age, 47. Since we know that people with Down's Syndrome are not really human and their lives have no value, the boys drew the short end of the stick.

The author tries to tell us what an agonizing decision it was. I'm sure it was not easy. But the fact is he asked for it. He and his wife knew when they tried IVF that there was a high chance of multiple pregnancy. They knew complications were likely and that the doctors might recommend abortion. They knew the father's age created the above-average potential for genetic abnormalities. They forged ahead anyway. They created life knowing they would probably have to end it as well. And they were OK with this.

It is truly sad that many people who want to have children find themselves physically unable to do so in the normal way. Is IVF really the answer? If your ultimate goal is to have children, why go to all the expense and risks of IVF when thousands of kids wait for years to be adopted?

The answer, of course, is selfishness. Parents like these want their own children. They want to be pregnant, have baby showers, go to the hospital, and have kids that are genetically "theirs." These things are so important to them that they will wait years, spend thousands of dollars, and possibly still remain barren, before they will consider adopting a child who is not "theirs."

So we end up with thousands of kids rotting away in foster care or institutions, and with excess fetuses being killed by their selfish parents, who pay fertility doctors massive amounts of money to do the dirty work. Exactly where is the logic in this?

Answer: there is no logic. There is only evil. Please don't be part of it.


Hat tip: Mark Gordon