Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘2020 Presidential Campaign’

Abortion_AL

Pro-choice supporters protest in front of the Alabama State House in Montgomery on May 14, 2019.
REUTERS/Chris Aluka Berry

“What angers me about the GOP’s attempts to turn the United States into a far-right Christian theocracy is how dishonest they are about it. At least be forthright about your desire to subvert and dismantle our democracy into a creepy theological order led by a mad king.”

    – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D) New York, Twitter, 5/17/19

It seems as if America is on course for an abortion show down. A sort of Roe v. Wade version of pistols at noon.

In January of this year, the first shot in the latest iteration of the ongoing abortion war fired by the New York State Legislature when it passed the Reproductive Health Act (RHA). If ever a bill was fast tracked, this one certainly was. According to Wikipedia, the bill was introduced into the New York State Legislature on January 9, 2019, passed by both houses on January 22, and signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo that same evening.

The RHA, widely considered the nation’s most liberal abortion law, changed New York’s abortion laws in the following ways:

  • Removed abortion from the state’s criminal code
  • Allows medical professionals who are not doctors to perform abortions
  • To the states statue allowing abortion in the third trimester if the mother’s health is threatened, the bill adds language permitting abortion in the third trimester if the fetus in not viable

In Virginia, a bill was introduced earlier this year that would have greatly liberalized abortion in that state. When asked in a radio interview about the whether the bill would allow a fetus surviving abortion to be killed, Governor Ralph Northam created a major controversy with his answer that lent support to allowing such an infant to die.

In sharp contrast to New York and Governor Northam, just this week the Alabama State Legislature passed, and the governor signed, what is viewed as the nation’s most restrictive abortion law. The Alabama law makes it a felony offense for doctors to perform or attempt to perform an abortion, allows no exceptions for rape of incest, but does permit abortions in the event the mother’s life is at risk.

But while Alabama’s law is the most restrictive state-level abortion statute, other states have recently enacted legislation that will have the effect of significantly reducing abortions. In 2019 five states – Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi and Ohio – have passed heartbeat bills, legislation designed to prohibit abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. Utah and Arkansas voted to limit abortions to the middle of the second trimester. Together with Alabama, this makes eight states in 2019 that have taken legislative action to restrict abortion.

Very clearly, when it comes to abortion America is a deeply divided nation.

With a majority conservative Supreme Court, it may well be, as several legal commentators have suggested, that state-level Republican legislators and governors have passed and signed into law these bills with an eye to challenging Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion in all fifty states.

If these laws are challenged in court, as they surely will be, it is entirely possible that the challenges could begin working their way through the federal court system just as the 2020 presidential election is coming to a head. If that happens, abortion could become the lightening rod of the 2020 presidential election.

Below are a few of my observations on brewing conflict.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

MAGA

MAGA’s dead. Long live the empire.

Three years ago, during the last presidential election cycle, many Americans found in Donald Trump a candidate whose ideas resonated with them. Trump was an outsider, we were told. He cared about forgotten Americans. The sort of people who lived in unfashionable places and had unfashionable jobs. Who drove unfashionable cars, wore unfashionable clothes and held unfashionable opinions. He was, we were told, the antidote to the sort of scripted, empire building, establishment politician – the Jeb Bush’s of the world, for example – that many of us had come to loath.

My own take on Trump was that I didn’t know if he was for real of not. Hoping that a politician will keep his word is always a gamble, and generally a losing one. As the Bible warns us, “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” As Christians, we know where our help comes from. Our help comes from the Lord, maker of heaven and earth. And it is him that we trust.

And yet knowing that, we also know that God not only determine the ends, but he also ordains the means by which he will accomplish those ends. And one of the institutions he has ordained for executing justice in this world and allowing his people to live peaceful lives is civil government. Paul calls the civil magistrate “God’s minister” and tells us he is put in his position to punish evil doers and praise the good. I mention this as a way of saying that, even though Christians look to God as our ultimate defender, there is nothing wrong with their supporting candidates for public office. In fact, one could argue that Christians have a duty before God to be involved in politics to help ensure that justice is done and evil avoided.

It had been my hope that Donald Trump would at least make some headway in restoring sanity to our republic. I didn’t expect him to be perfect. There is only one perfect man, and he wasn’t on the ballot in 2016. But it’s not unreasonable to hold a man accountable for his words. Donald Trump promised, among other things, to end the senseless foreign wars, to restore vitality to a hollowed out middle class and, most famously, to build that wall and to stop the flood of illegal immigrants, migrants and bogus refugees.

And if it’s fair to hold a man accountable for his words, we need to ask, So how is Donald Trump doing on his promises?

I’m afraid the answer is not very well.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Nancy Pelosi_2

Nancy Peolsi wants to study reparations.

Do the Democrats want to start a race war?

That, by the way, is a serious question. And it’s not at all clear to me that the answer is no.

So why do I bring this up now? In short, it seems to be the hip, new DNC talking point.

Oh, it’s not that the idea of reparations haven’t been floated before. Talk of that sort has been around since I was a kid. Over the past few years I’ve heard more talk about it, but it never seemed all that serious. And what with everything else in the world falling apart, well, there are only so many hours in a day, one has to pick and choose his battles.

That said, I was listening to a podcast with David Knight earlier today, and he spent a good deal of time talking about reparations and how talk of reparations was being taken seriously among Democrats.

Being the curious sort, I did a quick search and found out, lo and behold, that calls for reparations have indeed become a thing among top Democrats. What was once the province of fringe radicals is now a talking point of the Speaker of the House.

And they say Trump is divisive?

You could hardly come up with a more divisive, more destructive policy than reparations for slavery. According to The Hill, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) has a resolution with 35 co-sponsors and Nancy Peolosi has gone on record as supporting the study of the issue.

If you were to accuse Pelosi of supporting reparations for slavery, doubtless she would protest by saying that she only called for a study of the issue and has not come out in support of reparations.

But really, she kinda has.

You see, there are some issues that a responsible politician should never entertain.

Reparations for slavery is one of them.

Apart from the moral, practical and, probably, Constitutional issues involved with the suggestion, there’s the little problem that the idea, by its very nature, is designed to pit one American against another.

But then, maybe that’s the whole idea. Maybe the Dems really want to create racial animosity among Americans.

Maybe they see getting blacks and whites stirred up so they’re at one another’s’ throats as a winning strategy for 2020. Forget about the runaway debt. Forget about the predatory Federal Reserve. Forget about the endless foreign wars. Forget about the creeping surveillance state. Opening old wounds, that’s what we really need to focus on to move this nation forward!

Not to be outdone, Elizabeth Warren says that reparations for Native Americans should be part of the conversation.

Yeah, that’s going to be a fun talk. I can hardly wait.

But why stop there? After all, there’s an almost limitless number of potential aggrieved minority groups who could lay claim to victim status. But for some reason, I think the Dem political strategists have already thought of that one. Why, they could keep the whole racket going for years!

Marianne Williamson, who announced her presidential candidacy – I admit I have no idea who Marianne Williamson is, nor do I care to find out – even put a price tag on her reparations program, calling for $100B.

The odd thing is, she didn’t say specifically who would pay. According to the article in Ebony, she said the United States needs to pay. Well, the United States is in no position to pay anyone. It’s the citizens of the United States who pay. Apparently, Ms. Williamson isn’t honest enough to say what she really means, which is that she thinks white Americans owe blacks.

These women are disgraceful. Anyone who pits, or even so much as hints that they wish to study pitting, Americans against one another to score political points has no business being anywhere near the levers of power.

What’s interesting is that while this monstrous regiment of liberal women score cheap political points with their reparations talk, no one in the press ever dares call them divisive.

Apparently laying the groundwork for a race war is their little way of bringing everyone together.

 

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: