Friday, April 1, 2016

The Abortion Tax: A Modest Pro-Life Proposal

I sometimes wonder at the wisdom of the "regulating abortion to death" strategy (often called the "chip away" strategy because it nips around the edges, instead of attacking the heart of the issue). Most pro-life groups still support these measures. But is it a wise choice to support them, and to commit so much time, effort and money to them?

Will their strategy not regularize and normalize abortion by creating a well-regulated industry?

Will parental consent laws (while "saving some babies") not simply bring millions of grandparents into culpability for the murder of their grandchildren?

Will 20-week bans, or "heartbeat bills", while "saving some babies" who look and function more like cute baby boys and girls, not ultimately teach society (and, frankly, pro-lifers) that any fetus without a heartbeat, brain function, or some other commonly suggested measure of humanity are therefore less human? Less deserving of rights? Less valuable?

Will a law requiring a 24-hour wait so a mother can get an ultrasound, receive information about the humanity of her child, and cause her to reflect upon all this... While "saving some babies", will it not also convince the vast majority of mothers that inside their womb is a living, developing human child with their own unique DNA, with feelings (including the ability to feel pain), with a heartbeat, with fingernails and fingerprints... And yet it's your RIGHT as a woman to kill that unique, living human being.


But a recent epiphany has caused a change of heart. (I mean this, of course, in the manner of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (1729) - one of history's first overtly pro-life publications).

I hereby submit a modest tax proposal.


A Modest Pro-Life Proposal

If the goal is to "save some babies" through whatever means, as it certainly seems to be, then why not tax abortions??!!

If abortion is made more expensive, obviously it will become more difficult to obtain one, and therefore become less common!

A modest tax would have the real effect of reducing the number of abortions. We will have successfully "saved some babies!!!"

For that matter, why be modest? An even higher tax would surely have a greater impact, and would save even more babies!

Only the rich would be able to afford them! Abortion might even become a symbol of status... But I'm wandering from my point, aren't I?

There's plenty of precedent for this kind of tax. It's called a "sin tax." You pick a social behavior you don't like and you impose a tax upon it.

A sin tax has the added side benefit of generating tax revenue. The higher the tax, the more the revenue!

In fact, in many cases that's become the point of the tax. Here in Colorado, for instance, there's a tax on smoking which is used to fund state parks and public schools. God knows what the parks and schools would do if people actually stopped smoking, but...

You may also be aware of Colorado's marijuana industry (fully legal now) and the taxes which have been levied upon that. Many people are lauding Colorado's legalization of marijuana as a smart move, because of all the tax revenue and "economic vitality" it's brought...

I'm wandering from my point again, aren't I?

I guess there's a danger that our state will become too dependent upon revenue from the abortion tax. There's got to be a way around that.

Maybe we could use the money for "abortion awareness" - show people how awful abortion is, using TV advertisements funded by the abortion tax!!

For that matter, if we really started pulling in revenue, we could have a full-fledged offensive against abortion in the media! It could start funding the whole pro-life movement!

At least, until the number of abortions really started to go down. Then maybe we could increase the tax. But that would just reduce the number of abortions again. Hmm... How can we keep this going?

Maybe, so that we don't completely lose out on all this funding, we could stick with just the modest abortion tax. That way we split the difference in a way that'll be more productive. A moderate number of anti-abortion ads, and a moderate number of "saved babies" could balance out so that we have a sustainable equilibrium.

We could keep this going decades into the future!

I guess this seems at cross-purposes with the idea of ending abortion. But the good thing is we'll be educating the public long-term about how awful abortion is.

Forget Personhood! Forget abolishing abortion!

Even if abortion never ends, at least we will have saved some babies, and at least we'll still have our funding, and a modest anti-abortion awareness campaign. In the end, maybe the government will even subsidize it.


"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Regulation Affirms Abortion By Implication

There are two parts - maybe two sections or clauses - to the Personhood anti-abortion strategy.

The first is simple, easily grasped, and is understood and supported by the vast majority of pro-life activists. I daresay it's grasped and will be supported by a majority of the general population, easily enough, if we're able to carry the message to them.

That part is a direct assertion that:
  • an unborn human child at any gestation is by definition an innocent human being

  • that killing that innocent human being must therefore be murder, especially in the absence of any "due process of law"

  • and that abortion must, by definition, be premeditated murder, and therefore must be illegal (or should be made so)
The second is a corrollary, and is therefore somewhat indirect, and is because of that somewhat more difficult to explain without a discussion. There are no soundbites to this corrollary.

And that corrollary is:
  • if abortion is murder - an abhorrent crime - then it cannot and must not be regulated, because you cannot regulate something that isn't legal.

Regulations Send the Wrong Message to the People and the Courts

In fact, we in the Personhood movement, have often argued, it is counterproductive for pro-life legislators to insert "anti-abortion regulations" into the law in an attempt to "regulate abortion to death." This is a difficult task, since these legislators are, almost without exception, well-meaning men and women who are trying to achieve a positive partial result in the absence of an immediate fully positive solution.

We are fighting 30 years of a driven habit, urged on by most other pro-life groups which have encouraged legislators to submit, push and pass dozens of anti-abortion regulations, thinking that it would at least mitigate the evil until that day when we can finally end abortion forever.

For my part, I've often argued that these anti-abortion regulations may become the reason why we'll never be able to abolish abortion forever, because:
  • they normalize and regularize abortion in the public mind,

  • they convince the public that abortion can become a well-regulated (and therefore more acceptable) industry,

  • they bring government and the public into partnership with the abortion industry,

  • they imply that abortion must be legal, because you cannot regulate something that is not legal.
In an attempt to make that point, I've sometimes mentioned that municipalities do not have a law that says "you may drive a car up to X speed." Instead they have a law that says "you may not exceed X speed." The fact that you can drive under that speed is implied by the regulations.

But I've recently realized the most obvious example of my assertion is an obvious point of law, illustrated by a well-known court case.

The Dred Scott Decision

The US Constitution never said slavery should be legally allowed.

The US Constitution mentions slavery, obliquely, in only two places:
  1. It says unfree persons should be counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation and taxes (i.e. the "Three Fifths Compromise").

  2. It says Congress may regulate the slave trade, but may not prohibit it before 1808.
Let me reiterate that: The US Constitution at no time says slavery is legal!

Nevertheless, in 1857, the US Supreme Court examined the relevant laws, the Constitution and the institution of slavery in the infamous Dred Scott case.

They concluded, on the basis of two mere references to slavery in the Constitution, that the institution of slavery was a Constitutionally-protected right!

As I have often said, we believe merely mentioning abortion in law, except to explicitly and completely prohibity it, will backfire and give reason to courts and judges to rule that abortion must be legal by the very fact that the law sets limits upon it and regulations as to how it must be performed.

Dr. Charles Rice, late Professor Emeritus at the Notre Dame Law School, has argued this more ably and effectively, in a series of articles over the course of his life (he passed away in 2015). He believed such "anti-abortion regulations" would create a foundation in law for the legality of abortion.

And here, in the Dred Scott decision, we have proof that courts will take the flimsiest of implications to rule in favor of what they believe should be the law.

But, in reality, it's not that flimsy of an argument. It's completely logical, as we've said, that you cannot regulate something that is not legal, and therefore something that is regulated must be legal.

Please Do Not Regulate the Evil of Abortion

We, in the pro-life movement, must be careful not to overstep that line. We should not be inserting "anti-abortion regulations" into the law for a great many reasons. They, in fact, will perpetuate the existence of abortion, just as anti-slavery regulations in the 1800s perpetuated slavery.

We, in the Personhood movement, ask all pro-lifers to recognize the futility of anti-abortion regulations and support Personhood. Support ONLY Personhood.

Thank you!

Ed Hanks



Note: I'm using the term "anti-abortion regulations" too broadly, merely for effect. We in the Personhood movement believe there are such things as "principled regulations" that cause a positive, pro-life effect upon the law, but do not at the same time impugn the humanity of the unborn child. These laws do not mention abortion and are fully compatible with the interpretation of an unborn child as a human being. An example of a principled fetal homicide measure (here) has been submitted several times in Colorado, and once got far enough in the process to receive the vote of every Republican legislator in the Colorado House. Planned Parenthood regularly opposes this language, and browbeats every Democrat into voting against it, because they believe the unborn child must be considered as worthless under the law through 9 months of pregnancy, up until (and sometimes after) birth.

Thursday, November 6, 2014

GOP Senate Victory 2014: Good & Bad News for the Unborn

Many conservatives, Tea Party folks and Christians have mixed feelings about the GOP takeover of the US Senate yesterday.

Not that it happened - it's progress in a certain way, and it's great that it's a repudiation of the Obama agenda. But how it happened - the candidates we won with and how they got there - has been a matter of concern.

I recently published a book about how conservatives can get our party back. The party of Ronald Reagan, a sincere and well-meaning conservative who I think did his best to govern according to his philosophy.

He was also the modern president who most tried to inform his governing with his faith and with moral ethics. He was the most pro-life president, supporting a Human Life Amendment, very similar to what we now know as Personhood.

In my book, How To Train Your Politician, I describe the tension and friction between two groups. The conservative wing of the GOP, somewhat equivalent to what we call the Tea Party, and the Establishment wing, better known for its moderate policies and concentration on helping their buddies in big business.

Most of the key victories in the Senate last night were Establishment candidates to a greater or lesser degree. Even Joni Ernst. Even Cory Gardner. Most had defeated more conservative candidates in the primary.

In my book I explain the concept of "Intentional Voting" - I like to call it also "Don't Vote for Squishy." Basically I explain how it hurts the conservative cause when we vote for the lesser of two evils rather than voting our values.

But I also describe the concept of "Gateway Issues." It's all well and fine to try to nominate the candidate closest to your views and philosophy in the primary (ideally someone electable too, though you shouldn't compromise deeply set values in favor of electability). But we're not always going to get our first choice.

Morality does not require us to find a perfect candidate. Simply one who is not fundamentally flawed in his or her agenda. That's where you must choose your gateway issues - a litmus test. What must (or must not) a candidate believe for you to vote for them in good conscience? If a candidate doesn't meet that minimum requirement, they're just not good enough to vote for.

For me, my top gateway issue is life. The candidate must be unwilling to endorse the murder of any unborn children for any reason (abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life - I explain that in my book).

These winning Senate candidates aren't perfect candidates. They're certainly not as conservative as I'd like. But there's good news on the life issue for many of them.

In the discussion below I use four categories to describe their relationship to the concept of human Personhood. Essentially it's a belief that every innocent human being has a natural right to life and freedom that it's the government's responsibility to protect. This protects humans of any age, born or unborn, from slavery, murder or abortion. It's what Reagan was talking about.

To fully understand Personhood, which was the relevant and ultimately successful strategy behind the abolition of slavery, you must understand that laws either treat human beings as people or as property. Slavery treated human beings as property. Roe v Wade treats unborn children as the mother's property. Sadly, most well-intentioned efforts to regulate both slavery and abortion have reinforced the concept of people as property.

The categories are "S" for Solid, "O" for Open to Personhood, "P" for Possibly Persuadable, and "R" for Rejects the concept of human Personhood.

Also keep in mind these evaluations are at odds with what you might hear from National Right to Life or LifeNews.com. They bandy the term "pro-life" about lightly, handing it out to gobs of candidates, including those like Sen. John McCain who was pro-choice all his life until he needed pro-lifers' votes in 2008, and who still didn't hold a legitimately pro-life view then.

"S" - Solid candidates understand the Personhood concept fully and have the courage to vote accordingly. None of the winning candidates or current Senators are in this category - they're all willing to compromise (often in all sincerity) by treating the unborn as property. The only member of Congress I'm aware of who fits in this category is Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) who ran for US Senate this year but lost in the primary to David Perdue.

"O" - Open candidates have expressed some level of commitment to Personhood, whether a verbal endorsement, a vote in favor, or a tacit recognition that abortion is always wrong, even if they haven't used the term Personhood to describe their own view (Personhood is a familiar term in Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, the Dakotas and a few other places - less familiar in others).

There's good news here!

Keep in mind some of these candidates overcame more conservative candidates in the primary and have been seen as more Establishment candidates. In some cases maybe their opponents deserved the seat more and would have been better representatives. But let's look at what we got and understand what we got isn't as bad as we might think.

Note: Each of these "O" candidates are said to "oppose all abortions," meaning without exception. Technically most or all of these candidates do express an exception "to save the life of the mother," but as I explain in my book that's an unnecessary exception since abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother (it's safest to treat mother and child both as patients and deliver the child in an attempt to save the lives of both). I mention this technicality here and not in each specific case below.

Sen-Elect Joni Ernst (R-IA): In a primary against more conservative candidates she courted the Tea Party and tried to change her image. Is her change sincere or not? We won't know until she starts voting. But she took the step of expressly endorsing a Personhood amendment, which is a significant step. She opposes all abortions.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC): The first Black Senator to be elected in the South since Reconstruction (having already served a partial term) is one of 21 cosponsors of the Life At Conception Act, which isn't perfect but is essentially an attempt at federal Personhood legislation. He opposes all abortions.

Sen-Elect Tom Cotton (R-AR): As a Representative he cosponsored the House version of the Life At Conception Act (federal Personhood). He opposes all abortions.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): He has a long record as an Establishment candidate, and he defeated a more conservative candidate in the primary. But his pro-life record has stood strong. He opposes all abortions. He's also a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Bill Cassidy (R-LA): He hasn't been elected yet but he came away with one of two spots in the December runoff and it's relatively likely he'll beat Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) by picking up some of the votes that went to more conservative Rob Maness (R-LA) in the Nov. 4 primary (it's a Louisiana thing). Few pro-lifers would doubt Maness would have been more solid but according to the Louisiana Family Forum Cassidy opposes all abortions.

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS): He won a bitter primary against a more conservative opponent who supported Personhood. I cannot find anything specific to say Cochran also supports Personhood - he may, and probably has, and I just can't find it - but it appears that Cochran does oppose all abortions. He's also a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): He is also a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act. He opposes all abortions.

Sen-Elect Mike Rounds (R-SD): Rounds also defeated other candidates who were probably more solid on life issues. Nevertheless, it appears to me there are few politicians who have more to brag about in the life arena. As South Dakota's Governor, in 2006, Rounds signed into law a total ban on surgical abortions (which was then repealed by popular vote later that year). Critics will note that he vetoed a previous attempt to ban abortion, but I'm willing to give some grace as candidates gradually embrace total and unconditional respect for the unborn.

Sen-Elect James Lankford (R-OK): Lankford won a special election to take the seat previously held by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). He left a Baptist student ministry in 2010 to run for Congress. He opposes all abortions, and even produced an anti-abortion video that's too good not to share.


Sen-Elect Ben Sasse (R-NE): Sasse opposes all abortions. He has a good YouTube video too.

Sen-Elect Steve Daines (R-MT): Daines opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act in the House.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK): Inhofe has a long history of supporting the Life At Conception Act and previous versions of bills meant to accomplish the same things (some of these earlier versions were true federal Personhood without complicating language). He opposes all abortions.

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY): Enzi opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Sen. James Risch (R-ID): Risch opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): Sessions opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

That's 15 Senators elected or re-elected yesterday who oppose all abortions. I can't promise all of them will embrace Personhood, but there's a good chance of it, given the reaction I've seen to Personhood from other sincere pro-life politicians.

Of these 15, five of them replaced pro-abortion Democrats (Pryor, Harkin, Walsh, Johnson, and I'm presuming Landrieu), so we're at least 5 up from the last Senate.

In total, I have identified approximately 33 Senators who will be in office in January who are likely supporters of Personhood.

"P" candidates are Possibly Persuadable. These are candidates who have made outward expressions at being "pro-life" but they don't qualify under the Personhood litmus test. Many have stated they oppose abortion except in cases of rape or incest (which means they would impose the death penalty upon an innocent unborn child for the crime of the rapist). But my experience says if these candidates are pressured to change their position, or if they're approached in the right way to show them a different way to look at rape/incest exceptions, maybe half of them will change their mind. Which half? That remains to be seen. In the 2012 Presidential Primary, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), for example, had always held rape/incest exceptions (as have most Republicans who were in office in previous decades). But when he was confronted with a good argument that compassion for the raped woman shouldn't mean death for her child, he changed his position and endorsed Personhood. Others will too.

Obviously, I'm not as excited about this set of GOP victors as I was about those listed above. They represent challenges, and potential obstacles to legislation that would treat unborn children as Persons under the law. But the news isn't all bad.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The current Minority Leader won a hard-fought primary against a more conservative challenger who would have made alot of us more happy than having to deal with "rubber spine" McConnell. He supports rape/incest exceptions, but he does otherwise have a pro-life record. He's supported many anti-abortion regulations which treat the unborn as property, but have been recommended by many pro-life groups as "the right thing to do" to save lives (this belief is refuted in my book). McConnell is particularly keen on a Pain Capable Act which would ban abortions after 20 weeks, and which is discussed at the end of this article.

Sen-Elect Cory Gardner (R-CO): Cory Gardner was a rising star in the Personhood movement, and seemed like he had potential to bring a Personhood mindset to Washington. He even took the extraordinary step of attending a legislative briefing on Personhood while running for Congress (where it was explained that Personhood cannot affect "contraceptives" or any form of birth control that doesn't kill an already conceived child). Unfortunately, when he was hand-picked by McConnell and Karl Rove to be Colorado's candidate for the US Senate he renounced Personhood and said he had come to believe it was an "extreme" measure that would "ban contraceptives." He spent millions of dollars on television to advertise to Colorado voters (700,000 of whom supported Personhood this November - probably 3/4 of those who voted for him) that Personhood was extreme, but he wasn't like those extremists. It's not 100% clear, but it appeared that he told the Denver Post that he supported abortions for rape and incest.  Would he come back into the fold?  Who knows - he's gone back on his word before.

Sen-Elect Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Sullivan is another "pro-life with exceptions" candidate (we call them "pro-abortion with exceptions"). He supports abortions for rape or incest.

Sen-Elect David Perdue (R-GA): Perdue beat out other more pro-life candidates in the primary, at least some of whom were Personhood supporters. He is "pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest." He does support the aforementioned Pain Capable legislation which isn't as good as it sounds.

Sen-Elect Thom Tillis (R-NC): Tillis is "pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest." (Note: One Personhood article seemed to indicate Tillis supports Personhood. I cannot find any evidence for this. One article says he believes states have the right to ban forms of birth control, but the article indicated neither that he supported such a position nor that he had renounced his support for some abortions).

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN): Alexander has long been part of the anti-abortion regulatory culture in Washington, but he's long held to rape/incest exceptions.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): I couldn't establish for sure that he holds to rape/incest exceptions but I'm reasonably sure. If you have better information, please let me know in a comment. He supports the Pain Capable legislation.

It now appears that Ed Gillespie (R-VA) did not win his bid to unseat Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA). A recount will occur. Gillespie supports rape/incest exceptions.

The good news - besides that these new senators might become pro-life in time - is that three pro-abortion Democrats are no longer there (Sens. Mark Begich, Mark Udall, Kay Hagan).

"R" candidates Reject the humanity of the unborn. They do see the unborn as property and are officially pro-abortion (they say "pro-choice"), or some might claim to be pro-life but have nothing to show for it. The only good thing to say about this is there are few pro-abortion Republicans these days, compared to days past when it was relatively normal. Up to 2/3 of Republicans in many chambers across the country were pro-abortion - 1/3 in many places you'd think would be pro-life. The mood is changing, nationwide and in Washington.

Sen-Elect Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV): Capito has long been associated with and endorsed by Republicans for Choice, a pro-abortion PAC. She is pro-abortion.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): Collins has long been the Republican senator voted most wanted to go away. She's been worse than Sen. Arlen Specter (R/D-PA), before or after his defection to the Democrats. She is pro-abortion.

The Republican Establishment "rah-rah" crowd was keen to get Fmr. Sen. Scott Brown elected in New Hampshire. Some pro-life groups have bent into pretzels trying to portray him as pro-life, but it doesn't really make any sense. He's pretty much pro-abortion down the line, with a few outlying votes. We're better off without him.

There's also Dr. Monica Wehby (R-OR) - she never had a realistic chance to win, but she was outspokenly pro-abortion and she was a bad example for the GOP. It's fortunate she didn't do better than she did. She would have had FoxNews Republicans cheering for her, like they did for Brown, and it would have undermined the movement.

So there you have it. Even when you take into account the number of Establishment Republicans who defeated Tea Party (usually more pro-life) Republicans in the primaries, it appears that things are improving in Washington from a Personhood perspective. Is Personhood likely to come to a vote any time soon? No. There's alot of groundwork in the states and among the public to be done first. But we're making progress - don't doubt that!

On that note, consider that Amendment 67 in Colorado was the 3rd Personhood Amendment considered by Colorado voters. They mock us because we keep running this amendment, and it keeps getting defeated. But we're accomplishing what we want. It offers an opportunity to broadcast to the public through every media channel that unborn children are human beings deserving of rights. They wouldn't otherwise hear that - we are a cash-poor movement, and the free media is a Godsend.

Polls show only 12% of Americans in 2008 supported a total ban on abortion, but in that year Colorado's Personhood Amendment got 27% of the vote. Now, in 2014, polls show 17% of Americans support a total ban on abortion - a number which has benefited by many Personhood efforts around the country, as well as the public debate over Hobby Lobby's refusal to provide abortifacients in its healthcare plans - and in 2014 36% of Colorado voters supported a Personhood Amendment! We're making progress.

Before I sound like I'm being all rosy about the prospects of a pro-life future in a Republican controlled Senate, I offer this heartclenching prediction.

If Sen. Mitch McConnell remains head of the Republicans in the Senate, he has said that he will push for and pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Since no member of the Senate is listed as "Solid" above, none of these people fully understand why Personhood is the only strategy that will actually help unborn children, and why regulations reinforce the impression of the unborn as property. Therefore, any other Senate leader would probably do the same, and probably no senator is going to object.

This legislation is more "big talk, little effect" like the 2007 Partial Birth Abortion Ban which didn't ban a single abortion (and even allowed partial birth abortions to continue to this day, modified very slightly from how they were done in the past). The main reason it exists is to give pro-life voters something to salivate about while at the same time representing little risk to candidates and they can use it to call themselves "pro-life" even if the rest of their record is questionable.

And Pain Capable legislation sets up a false value differential, making it look like the older an unborn child is - or the more one looks like a baby - the more human they are. Educated pro-lifers realize this is a false (nay, dangerous!) contrast. It perpetuates the Roe v Wade style argument that age or viability or the acquisition of certain abilities is what determines whether someone is deserving of rights. Personhood recognizes that every innocent human being is deserving of rights by virtue of their being human.

Lastly, I simply want to say that this blog post is the result of 12-15 hours of hard research work, but is nevertheless cursory. It's entirely possible I've been unfair to some of the candidates above, or "too fair" to others. If you have additional information or corrections to offer me, please leave a comment.

Thank you! Please pray for the continued spreading of the Personhood concept, and that the US Senate will someday embrace the humanity and protect the rights of every unborn child.

Friday, October 3, 2014

Don't Vote For Squishy! How To Train Your Politician

A new book is coming to rally and inspire the Tea Party and the conservative/liberty movement!

How To Train Your Politician:
Intentional Voting as a Path to Tea Party and Constitutional Victory

The Establishment thinks all they have to do is slap a Ronald Reagan mask on their socialist candidate and we’ll vote for them. What’s worse – we do!!! This kind of voting behavior is what got us Speaker Boehner.

Think about that a second. That's how we got Speaker Boehner. We're doing this to ourselves, by voting in the interests of the Establishment, not in our own interests.

Turning things around is going to require a paradigm shift. How can we get back on top of this again, and stop getting nominees like Mitt Romney and John McCain. How do we achieve victory for solid conservatives instead, who will lead our country out of this statist mess?

I lay that out in How to Train Your Politician.

Topics include:
  • How the GOP Establishment trained conservatives to vote for progressive socialists
  • How “lesser of two evils” voting and compromised leadership undermine conservatism
  • Special discussions about the Tea Party and Christian conservatives
  • How Third Parties Influence Politics
  • Why Establishment candidates lose, and how elections are really won
  • How we can train political parties to respond to our agenda instead
  • A preview of a second upcoming book on Personhood and the Right to Life
Some of the actions and solutions I propose may seem radical or extreme -- definitely different from what the Party's talking heads teach us! -- but I assure you I back up each of these with background, evidence and examples, and I'm quite confident in my assertions. Even if you think you don’t agree with my conclusions or suggestions, I hope you will give my book a fair hearing and are intellectually honest enough to consider whether I might be right.

About me: I have served a state governor as speechwriter and a Republican legislative caucus as press secretary. I’ve been watching politics since I was a kid, and have been involved almost as long. Today I fit most closely with liberty activists, Constitutionalists and the Tea Party.

HTTYP is due to be released for Kindle purchase and download Oct. 8, 2014. A print copy of the book should be available within days of the Kindle edition, if not at the same time.

I will be using the Twitter hashtags #dontvoteforsquishy and #httyp to promote the book. I'd love it if you'd join the conversation!

I would also very much appreciate if you would like to review or post about my book on your blog or on social media.

Media inquiries, including blogger requests for information, please contact me at coloconservative@gmail.com.

If you would like to set up an interview or radio/TV show appearance, I am available most times during the week EXCEPT for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday between 6 am and 6 pm Mountain Time. I can be, however, available between about 12:15 and 12:40 pm on Monday through Wednesday.

I will send out periodic updates on How to Train Your Politician and other political books and projects. If you would like to sign up, please fill out the form below. Providing your name is helpful, so I know if I know you on Facebook, etc.

Please also like my Author Page on Facebook and Follow me on Twitter.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required



Friday, May 16, 2014

How Am I A Creationist?

People sometimes ask me, "How can you be a Creationist?" like it's a childhood belief people are born with, but they're supposed to grow out of it. Like believing in the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus.

I tell them my story is actually quite different, and it starts back when I was an atheist...

See, I believed in a naturalistic origin for the whole world, and all the universe - a paradigm entirely without God or gods. And I wanted to know how to be able to really defend my beliefs, and take those Christians to task in scientific and logical terms. So I began studying "the texts" - I began studying evolution in detail.

But when I started looking deeply into evolutionary theory, I realized that it makes sense on the surface. It's a very finely crafted argument, up to a point. But then things start to break down, and there are some very fundamental questions that are sidestepped or entirely avoided. Like major holes in the theory that really should have answers, if it's that astute a belief system.

Naturally, I sought answers. If I wasn't finding them in the books, I figured I'd ask people who should know - professors and scientists. But when you start asking questions about the dogma of evolution - when you start expressing doubts about their deeply held beliefs - they spout pat answers.  They don't really answer the questions - they avoid answering directly.  Then they start getting nervous, and looking at you askance.

And then their eyes flash, like they know you, and
they point their knobby fingers at you, and they shout, "Heretic! Heretic!!!"

And then they send the mob with torches after you....

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Remembering Terri Schindler-Schiavo

I've occasionally resurrected old articles and columns I have written in the past. This week is the 9th anniversary of the intentional starving of Terri Schiavo, who was said by the media to have been "in a vegetative state", and said by her husband to "have wanted to die." The media ignored signs that her injury may have been the result of a failed murder attempt by her husband, and also ignored medical signs that Terri was, in fact, able to respond to the world around her. This column was printed in The Front Range Rampart in 2005.



People enjoy movies about the best of human nature, and the human spirit. And, invariably, the movies we find most compelling are stories about survival in the face of great odds.

When have we ever seen movies where responders to the scene of a bad accident exhort the victims, “Just give up! You’re not going to want to live like this.”? No! They say, “Come on! Hang in there! You can make it!”

We are uplifted by movies about the piano player or football star who’s lost his limbs, yet finds the will to live a productive life. Life’s not all about “quality of life.”

Ask Joni Earickson Tada, a quadriplegic who ably guides a paintbrush with her teeth and gives inspirational speeches to audiences around the world. She said, “I didn’t think I wanted to live like that, either.” But now she does. Injuries can change your whole life, but the human will to live can overcome despair. She redefined her “quality of life” and found her own life abundant in quality even in spite of her handicaps.

So how did our society so lightly begin making decisions for Terri Schiavo, whose supposed desire to die became accepted as Gospel by the courts and media on the basis of hearsay her long estranged husband first voiced many years after her debilitating injury?

Some of those movies about the human will to live are scary. Many stories over the years have frightened us with the thought of being hurt but alive – but without any way to let someone else know. In plenty of these stories, the human spirit perseveres and finds rescue. But not in all.

Terri exhibited convincing signs of consciousness and emotion, and could communicate in simple ways. All of this the media ignored. Some of us knew, but the world as a whole – the people Terri was counting on – did not hear her cry.

Terri Schiavo was the poster-child for disabled rights in this country, and we killed her.

How much further from here to a society where we “euthanize” the disabled to put them out of their misery? Or the elderly?

More stories – often sci-fi tales like Star Trek or The Time Machine – warn of the horror of a society that sacrifices the weak for the benefit of the society as a whole. Lebensraum.

America needs to step back from the brink on this dangerous subject. We need to embrace free will and individual rights in these cases, not allow the government to become the arbiter of life and death, coldly judging to favor the “best interests” of the broader community.

Terri, whose life was judged irrelevant and worthless to society by the “wisdom” of American courts, may well turn out to be one of the most important and relevant lives lived during our age. It is our duty to be compelled by her story, and her struggle for life. We must learn from this, and we must act.

Friday, November 15, 2013

The "Never Were Any WMDs" Lie

I'm continually frustrated that so many -- many Republicans included -- believe the lie that "there never were any weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq".

It's patently -- provably -- not true!  And the lie can be easily refuted using entirely liberal news sources (because it was all over CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, etc.).  Or Bill Clinton's own words, etc.

So to set the record straight, this is how I (and the liberal news networks) remember the history leading up to the US coalition (there's another lie -- "no coalition" -- there were many countries who joined the invasion) invading Iraq in March of 2003 after a yearlong period of waiting in vain for diplomatic breakthroughs (i.e. no "rush to war" either).

Today many forget that in 1983 the world knew as an absolute fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had actually used WMDs (nerve gas) against Iranian soldiers in their war.  They knew because we had video of Iranian soldiers under the effects of nerve gas (I remember watching the video on CBS, and it was disgusting).  And the networks followed up enough that they were convinced the story was true.

So there -- just there alone -- we know for a fact that the "never were any WMDs in Iraq" statement is a lie.  Or at least an intentional omission by those who know, and an ill-informed mantra learned by many who have been lied to by people with a partisan political agenda.

But there's more...

In 1988 US news networks (liberals) knew as an absolute fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had actually used WMDs (nerve gas) against Kurdish separatists in Halabja, in northern Iraq.

In 1992, shortly after the UN coalition defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War, the world was appalled as the US appealed for an uprising in southern Iraq and then was slow to respond when it happened and the Iraqi army and air force crushed it.  The belated "no fly zones" couldn't save the rebels, and it only served to keep Saddam Hussein in power when his own people clearly wanted him gone.

In any case, then in 1992, Americans knew as an absolute fact that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi government had actually used WMDs again (nerve gas) against Shi'ite separatists in southern Iraq.

And so, starting in 1992, the increasingly frustrated UN imposed sanctions upon Iraq requiring them to allow weapons inspectors "unfettered access" to Iraqi WMD sites so they could find and destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.  However, it's clear from the record (this article from NPR details the whole history) these inspectors never had "unfettered access."  In fact, they were continually, routinely, delayed, misdirected and otherwise obstructed, so that they had no way of knowing if they were really finding Iraq's WMD stockpiles.  Many of these inspectors were convinced Iraq was hiding something, still.

This pattern of obstruction continued even as late as 2003, just weeks before the US coalition invasion of Iraq.  Inspectors would be told there were WMDs hidden in a presidential palace (you remember this from the news, don't you???), the inspectors would lead a convoy there to inspect it, Iraqi soldiers would hold them up for 2 or 3 hours, or a full day, so they couldn't inspect it, and then once they finally arrived they found -- surprise, surprise! -- that there was no evidence of WMDs remaining.  That was the repeated history of a decade of UN weapons inspections!

Yes!  The inspectors did find and destroy large quantities of WMDs and many WMD-producing facilities (again, what do the liberals say?  "Never any WMDs in Iraq"???), but there was always a feeling that there was more being hidden.  On more than one occasion, Iraq was found to have been lying and hiding WMD programs which were later discovered by weapons inspectors and destroyed.

Why should they -- and the administration of George W. Bush -- have assumed that they'd found everything when there was so much evidence that Iraq continued to hide and obstruct, and had been shown to have hidden WMDs which were later found?

The history generously supports what President Bush said, in 2002, "We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger."  I agree! 

In late 2002, shortly before the US led invasion, the UN found Iraq to be in "material breach" of its obligations to obey UN resolutions (i.e. it was still avoiding and flaunting its obligations to submit to inspections, and presumably was still hiding things from inspectors).  And Hans Blix, head of the UN inspection regime, was frustrated.  NPR says: "Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point."

So there is the crux of my argument -- expressed not by partisan US officials, but by a relatively neutral Hans Blix of the UN: 1) he indicates there were once "vast stores of chemical and biological agents", 2) Iraq was "known to have [them] at one point," and 3) Iraq was responsible for a "failure to account" for these vast stores.  He's admitting that the UN inspectors knew Saddam Hussein had vast stores of WMDs at one point, and the UN inspectors had no way to confirm that they did not still exist!  Obviously, despite continued operations and the destruction of much of Iraq's stockpiles and infrastructure, the total stockpiles destroyed and the entirety of the infrastructure destroyed could not reliably be estimated to equal Iraq's total capacity at one time.  Even Blix, as late as 2002, believed Saddam still had WMDs hidden somewhere.

The most pressing concern, in US foreign policy circles, that a weakening of resolve from Russia, Germany and France (each of which had financial ties to Iraq, and would benefit from a lessening of sanctions) would allow Saddam Hussein to be released from UN sanctions and mandates, so that he could resume his former activities unmolested, and could thereby prove a destabilizing influence in the Middle East, as well as continuing to fund worldwide terrorism.

Admissions and Allowances:

1) It's true.  By 2003, Saddam Hussein may not have had a substantial WMD stockpile.  He might have destroyed it in secret, though there was no way for US intelligence officials or UN inspectors to know this.  Why should they have trusted his word, when in so many other cases he was known to have lied?

2) It's possible, even if Saddam Hussein's WMD stockpile and his biological and nuclear weapons programs had really been dismantled, that he wanted the world to think that he still had such weapons and such capabilities.  He may have seen benefit in making its bitter enemy Iran, or even other enemies, believe he still had the ability to use WMDs.  In fact, it's p
ossible that Saddam Hussein set himself up for invasion by refusing to deny that he still had WMDs.  The obstruction of the inspectors may have been a ruse to make Iraq's enemies think that he still had WMDs when he didn't.  Still, President Bush can't be blamed for not taking Saddam at his word, and thinking the worst of him, right?

3) It's possible the CIA and the Bush Administration overstated the case for WMDs still in Iraq.  That's what administrations do!  The Obama Administration has obviously overstated the case for US citizens' ability to "keep the health plans they like".  Why aren't liberals up in arms about that?  What's clear from the evidence is that the Bush Administration could rationally and realistically believe Saddam Hussein's Iraq still had WMDs, and might retain some ability to create more.  They also believed the inspection regime, and the full array of UN sanctions against Iraq, might soon come to an end, and Iraq might soon be free to reconstitute its WMD programs anew!  So no wonder they might have tried to push the envelope a little in order to provide rationale for an invasion that would put an end to Saddam Hussein's destabilizing shenanigans once and for all.  I believe the Bush Administration thought it was doing the world a favor by invading Iraq, and the evidence presented here shows you why.

That said, it's also possible, as was reported by reliable intelligence sources, that Iraq smuggled the remainder of its WMD stockpile by truck convoy into Syria in the weeks before the US invasion.  It's entirely possible that the WMDs we've been concerned about during the Syrian Civil War in 2013 did in fact originate in Iraq, in 2003.

In any case, here's what the evidence proves:

1) it's provably clear that Iraq did have substantial stockpiles of WMDs at one point,

2) mainstream, typically liberal, news sources reported as absolute fact in 1983, 1988 and 1992 that Iraq actually used nerve gas WMDs against its enemies, internal and external, and

3) UN weapons inspectors had no way to confirm that all of Iraq's WMDs had been destroyed.  In fact, the continual obstruction of inspections by Saddam Hussein's Iraq led rational people, including some of the inspectors themselves, to believe that Iraq still hid at least some WMDs as late as 2003, and might even have some hidden infrastructure to resume production.