Modern Eugenics

            Eugenics: The study of hereditary improvement by genetic control. This seemingly harmless dictionary definition of eugenics masks the horrendous aspects of  various social movements that advocated selective breeding and sterilization to eliminate inferior elements of society.

            The worst example of eugenics was Nazi Germany's attempt to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe, although the official policy of China to dispose of female babies is not far behind. Not many people realize, however, that eugenics was practiced in this country long before the Nazis and Chinese "perfected" it. For example, the American Breeder's Association founded in 1906 emphasized the menace to society of inferior blood. It was supported by many prominent Americans, including Alexander Graham Bell and none other than Margaret Sanger, the saint of birth control, who advocated sterilization where the subject was not able to use birth control. In pursuit of such social improvement, many states instituted forced sterilization of poor minorities. North Carolina was no exception. Its Eugenics Board was responsible for the sterilization of 7,600 poor blacks between 1929 and 1974.
            Mass forced sterilization is no longer practiced these days, but that doesn't mean that eugenics is dead. It now takes the form of abortion. Because it is now possible to identify birth defects in the womb, in utero  eugenics now eliminates 90% of all Down's Syndrome babies. Why not? How can we possibly object to improving the genetic features of our human population?
            But let's not stop at abortion of babies with genetic defects: let's get rid of the inconvenience of unwanted babies, too. The number of abortions performed in this country since Roe v. Wade  now stands at over 56,000,000.  Some 300,000 abortions a year are performed by Planned Parenthood alone! So much for Roe v. Wade's promise to make abortion safe, legal, and RARE.
            In his speech to Planned Parenthood's national convention, President Obama praised the organization without ever mentioning the carnage occurring every hour of every day in its abortion clinics. The man who voted three times against outlawing late-term abortions couldn't even bring himself to condemn the atrocities committed by Hermit Gosnell and excused by a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman as a matter of a woman's choice. The man who swore to protect this country from enemies at home and abroad will not lift a finger to protect even the most innocent and defenseless among us.
            It has become clear to me that the man whose royal treatment of himself and his family really deserves a crown. So I hereby give Barack Obama a new title and a new name: King Eugene.
            Come on, Your Majesty. Give us a big smile.

Hillary Nailed

            Nailed!

            I was one among many who criticized Congress for not following up on the multiple Benghazi scandals. I take it all back. The 46-page report just released by five House panels, the result of seven months of investigation, finally puts the blame for Benghazi where it belongs: on Hillary Clinton. She gets nailed. Nailed!
            She gets nailed for lying in her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23rd when she denied approving a reduction in security levels prior to the September 11 attack. According to the report, the State Department knew there was a high threat environment in Benghazi, yet it continued to systematically withdraw security personnel. Secretary Clinton's signature acknowledged the request for additional security assets, while ordering the withdrawal to continue as planned.
            She gets nailed for lying about the State Department's involvement in altering the famous "talking points memo"  to cover the department's butt. And she gets nailed for lying publicly when she blamed the attack on a video while knowing that the attack had been an act of terrorism.
            I applaud the efforts of the House panels for pursuing the truth, in spite of administration attempts to bury it. They have exposed and put to shame the lies, distortions, and cover-ups by the president and his minions. Benghazi was a scandal of enormous proportions. Four brave Americans died there because our leaders failed to protect them before and during the terrorist attacks. Then these same leaders lied repeatedly to insulate the president during his re-election campaign.
            Hillary Clinton said that she accepted full responsibility for the State Department's failings. But what was the consequence? Did she resign out of a sense of honor?  Of course not. That wouldn't look so good on her resume when she runs for office in 2016.
            Let's remember that In front of the cameras during her testimony before Congress, she dismissed the attacks that resulted in the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi with the infamous quip, "It doesn't matter how the attacks in Benghazi came about."
            Maybe it doesn't matter to her. But it matters to me. It should matter to everyone.

Ignoring Atrocities

            I was born 40 miles from Fenway Park and I've been a loyal fan of the Red Sox since I was 8 years old, oh so many years ago. The other evening I was watching a game and noticed that every pitch was being recorded on a strike zone grid in the lower right-hand corner of the screen. So I decided to keep score of the umpire's accuracy in calling balls and strikes. To my dismay, I found that the umpire made the right call less than 90% of the time. This led me to musing about something called judgment, not just the judgment of an umpire who could affect the outcome of a game, but more specifically about the judgment of our national media in not reporting news that has a direct bearing on our nation's moral character.

            There are two kinds of reporting in our media. One is opinion, the other news. Opinion is generally biased in one direction or another as it reflects the views of the writer or pundit. My writings, for example, reflect a conservative point of view and are markedly different from opinions offered by my liberal friends. But news should be news and not biased. And that should include all that is newsworthy, not just news that the source considers favorable to its point of view. More importantly, news organizations should not dismiss or exclude news that threatens their particular bias. They should report the facts and not make judgment calls on what constitutes news. A case in point is the Kermit Gosnell story.
            Dr. Gosnell is a monster. He has been performing late-term abortions since before Roe v. Wade in 1974. According to testimony at his trial, his butchery has taken the lives of more than 1,000 babies born alive. His methods are too gruesome to repeat here. I believe Gosnell will go straight to hell after his execution or the end of his life in prison. But the story here is not about Gosnell's judgment, but about the judgment of the news media that deliberately chose to ignore this story until Fox News and some radio talk-show hosts forced them to report on it.
            Was this because the mainstream media did not feel that, in their judgment, this story was  newsworthy? Or was it because it threatened to expose their bias?
            This wasn't a trivial story about balls and strikes, folks. This was a story about the extermination of a whole class of unwanted individuals. Real people. People who might all be alive today. People with unique talents contributing to society in a myriad of ways. People who had just as much a right to life as those who chose to deny it to them. This is a story about modern barbarism in the name of Choice.
            When decision-makers in the media avert their eyes to such unspeakable atrocity, they are just as guilty as those Germans who chose to look the other way as millions fueled ovens in their back yard.

           

Obama Snubs Thatcher

            Margaret Thatcher was one of the greatest world leaders of all time, certainly the best woman to lead her nation in my lifetime. It's no wonder her funeral was attended not only by Queen Elizabeth II, but also by prime ministers, presidents, and dignitaries from all over the world.  Notably absent were the President of the United States, his Vice-President, and his Secretary of State. The president's delegation consisted of Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, and James Baker, all Republicans. Also in attendance were Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and three members of the House of Representatives, Republicans all.

            As expected, the British press voiced its disapproval of such an obvious snub. But let's recall that  one of Barack Obama's first acts upon gaining the presidency was to insult our most loyal ally by returning a bust of Winston Churchill to Britain. So this latest snub was not surprising.
            What does this say about our president? Fox National Security Analyst K.T. McFarland said it best: "Shame on you, Mr. President. You and your administration look cheap, small and petty...And frankly, Mr. President, this makes you look foolish as well." I would only add that once again Barack Obama showed a shameful lack of class.
            Margaret Thatcher and Barack Obama embody opposite sides of the political spectrum. We can pretty much guess what she would have said about Obama's positions on taxes, spending, and national debt. After all, she was a fierce opponent of the British Labor Party's socialist policies and once famously said, "Socialist governments traditionally make a financial mess. They always seem to run out of other people's money." The shoe fits, doesn't it?
            My favorite Thatcher quote is, "We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state." Are you listening, Mr. President?
            Oh, how I wish we had a Margaret Thatcher to save our country the way she saved hers.

Spring Is Sprung

            Spring is finally here. With temperatures soaring into the 80s, nature awakens with enthusiasm. Fruit trees and magnolias blossom all at once, birds reappear at their familiar feeders, and wildflowers line our highways with purple carpets. Hibernating humans are not far behind. Whirring lawnmowers echo from neighbors' yards, long pants give way to shorts, and ice cream lovers once again return to Woodard's for a nip and a lick of their favorite flavors.

            Spring is also a time for giving. Collection of items for the annual tag sale has begun; pancake breakfasts, spaghetti dinners, and benefit golf tournaments appear on our calendars;  volunteers knock on our doors for donations to worthy causes; and friends and neighbors get together to paint fences and repair docks.
            Such is the spirit that infuses our corner of North Carolina. It is in sharp contrast to the profligacy and self-absorption that characterizes the Beltway. We read that Joe Biden, a millionaire who gives almost nothing to charity, spent a cool million of taxpayer money on hotel bills in Paris and London for himself and his entourage, not to mention $321,000 on limousine service.
            Not to be outdone, the president, after sending his wife on a ski vacation in Aspen while he golfed in Florida, sent his kids on a spring break to the Bahamas, all at a huge cost to the taxpayers. Then he celebrated the arrival of spring by throwing a lavish White House party that cost $1.2 million. He hit corporate donors for some of the bill, but stuck taxpayers with their share of $430,000. While he and MIchelle swayed to the music, I wonder if they thought about the kids who can no longer tour the White House because of the Sequester, which, in spite of his protests, was the president's idea in the first place. And now we hear that invitations are already going out for Michelle's 50th birthday bash next year, the costs of which are projected to be upwards of $3 million.
            The Obamas are raising imperial style to a new level. Roman emperors never had it so good.  

           

Neighbors

            The gun control battle has now come to my neighborhood. On one side is a liberal screaming for our legislators to DO SOMETHING! On the other is a gun-carrying conservative who says the government will NEVER TAKE AWAY MY GUNS!

            To the liberal, the haunting nightmare of Newtown demands that legislatures protect our loved ones by passing strict gun control laws, as if such laws could have prevented Adam Lanza from spraying a classroom with bullets. There was no suggestion in her letter to me that lawmakers should reconsider legislation that put mentally ill killers like Lanza back on the streets instead of keeping them in mental institutions where they cannot harm us.
            To the conservative, the best solution would be to arm everyone, including classroom teachers. He is fond of telling the story about two punks who walked into a New Jersey bar one day, pulled out guns, and announced "This is a stickup." The next thing they heard was a series of metallic clicks coming from the bar occupants. What the punks didn't realize is that they had walked into a bar that just happened to be a hangout for off-duty officers. The holdup did not go so well. So, If crime control works with armed officers, it should work even better with an armed citizenry.
            I cannot fault either of my neighbors for their strongly held positions, although I do not entirely agree with them. I just happen to have a different take on the subject. As horrible as Newtown was, it cannot compare with the slaughter that takes far more innocent lives in our inner cities, with Chicago, Obama's hometown, being the worst. I don't need to repeat the awful statistics here. I would like to make the case, however, as many others have done, for the root cause of gun violence. To me, it comes down to the degradation of our culture.
            It all begins with a wide range of corrupting influences: the devaluing of life where "choice" is more important than the protection of the innocent; the dismissal of marriage and fatherhood as core transmitters of traditional values; the moral relativism of an increasingly secular society; the greed of Wall Street moneychangers; the perpetrators of graphic violence in the entertainment industry; the hypocrisy of our nation's leaders whose principles "evolve" to please the masses.
            Far beyond legislative band-aids and constitutional arguments, all of us who care about the legacy we leave our children should demand more of our leaders and ourselves. We should speak up in every way against the corruption, the venality,  the greed, and the merchants of violence.
            After all, those were all our children in Newtown.