MONEY SOAKED IN THE BLOOD OF THE INNOCENT
by Thomas A. Droleskey
March 26, 2002
Myths die hard. So many pro-life Americans want to
believe that they have a true champion of the babies in
the White House. Regardless of President George W. Bush's
support for the slaughter of the innocent unborn in cases
of rape, incest, and alleged threats to the life of
mothers, regardless of his support for the evil of
federally funded stem cell research, regardless of his
support for the funding of chemical abortions by means of
"family planning programs" both here and abroad,
regardless of his appointment of one pro-abort after
another to the highest quarters of his administration, he
is pro-life because he calls himself pro-life. Well, a
gratuitous assertion by Bush that he is pro-life does not
make him authentically pro-life any more than his
gratuitous assertion that Islam "is a religion of peace
and tolerance" undoes the history of the attempt by
Mohammedans to overrun and destroy Christian civilization
in the past 1500 years. It is well past time for pro-
lifers to stop suspending the use of rational thought and
to begin to examine quite critically the words and
actions of those who profess themselves to be our
friends, but who, in reality, are only concerned with
their own electoral survival.
As Raymond Burr was wont to say while portraying the
fictional Chief Robert T. Ironside, "Query." I have a
query for you. Would a man who said he was opposed to
racism and anti-Semitism help to raise funds for David
Duke? Would the leaders of so-called civil rights groups
and the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai Brith sit back
while an alleged friend of theirs raised, say, $2 million
for Duke or some other white supremacist? I don't think
so. Then, my friends, why is it the case that pro-lifers
cover their ears and shut their eyes to the harsh reality
presented to them when they learn that the "pro-life"
president raised $2 million for the reelection campaign
of the Catholic Republican pro-abortion governor of the
State of New York, George Pataki? Would pro-aborts have
been silent if former President William Jefferson Blyth
Clinton helped to raise funds, say, for the late governor
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Robert Casey? Why,
then, do pro-lifers keep their mouths shut when a man who
is simply less pro-abortion than other politicians works
quite hard to elect total pro-aborts to public office? As
if the fact of Bush's raising funds for Pataki was not
bad enough, it is important to note that he did so in the
apartment of the reprehensibly pro-abortion mayor of the
City of New York, Michael Bloomberg, who is so pro-
abortion that he wants all medical residents who work in
the City's public hospitals to be trained in baby-
killing.
President Bush says over and over again that he
"shares" an important goal with pro-lifers, namely,
working for the day when "every child will be welcomed in
life and protected by law," the mantra of the National
Right to Life Committee (which supports the destruction
of innocent life under cover of law as a matter of
principle in cases where it is alleged that a mother's
life is at risk). As I have noted repeatedly, Bush
himself does not believe this line that has been given
him to read by some in the pro-life establishment. He
supports legalized baby-killing in certain instances,
thereby contradicting the statement that "every" child
should be "welcomed in life" and "protected by law." As
he supports the right of mothers to kill children in
certain instances, the word "every" is meaningless. Note
also how Bush does not say that he favors the reversal of
Roe v. Wade. The language which has been crafted for his
use is almost Clintonian in its artfulness. The president
has said in a number of interviews that the country is
"not ready" for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Several
members of his Cabinet, including Attorney General John
Ashcroft, have said that Roe v. Wade is settled law,
which, as I noted a few months ago, is a line that will
be used quite a bit by alleged pro-life politicians
fearful of alienating pro-abort voters ("I am pro-life,
but there is nothing I can do to reverse abortion, since
Roe v. Wade is settled law"). How is this country ever
going to be ready for to reverse a heinous Supreme Court
decision if its leaders do not believe that is either
possible or desirable to take political risks to do so?
More to the point, however, how is President Bush
going to help to create a climate where "every child will
be welcomed in life and protected in law" when he works
so very hard to raise funds for the election of people
who are committed to the maintenance of legalized baby-
killing on demand? There are no fewer than seven fully
pro-abortion Republicans in the U.S. Senate (Susan
Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of
Rhode Island, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Warner
of Virginia, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Ben
Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado). Would the president
refuse to raise funds for any one of these supporters of
unrestricted baby-killing? Of course not. As evidenced by
his willingness to raise funds for George Pataki, who has
used his governorship to promote abortion just as much as
his predecessor, Mario Matthew Cuomo, the bond created by
partisan political ties means more than the blood of the
innocent unborn. Abortion, as bad as it is, simply cannot
interfere with the election of one's fellow partisans.
"Well, what about Health and Human Services
Secretary Tommy Thompson's announcement before a
conservative gathering in Washington recently that the
Bush administration is going to define a "fetus" as an
"unborn child" as a means of providing medical coverage
for pregnant women? Isn't that a victory for pro-life?"
Think again. The announcement was made as an applause
line at a friendly forum to keep pro-life Indians on the
Bush reservation. As Judie Brown of the American Life
League noted in a special Communique she issued on
February 18, 2002, "HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson created
a stir earlier this month by announcing plans to expand a
federal health program to cover the preborn children of
eligible mothers. The announcement drew a pained response
from abortion advocates who claimed it would undermine
Roe v. Wade by assigning personhood to preborn children.
Since then, however, it is reported that the Bush
administration has taken no formal action on the
proposal. In recent days, Thompson is said to have told
members of Congress that he would seek a compromise to
'mitigate the harshness of the rhetoric.' The 'harsh
rhetoric' in question involves the use of the term
'unborn child.' Colleen Parro of the Republication
National Coalition for Life reports, 'It is our
understanding that government regulations are typically
announced and published in the Federal Register,
whereupon public comment is sought for a period of 30 to
60 days. Thereafter, the regulation is either adopted or
rejected. This regulation appears to be unusual, in that
the announcement was made on January 31, 2002, but the
regulation has yet to appear in the Federal Register and
public comment has not been sought.' COMMENT: Why not?
Has the supposedly pro-life Bush administration
capitulated to the abortion industry and pro-abortion
members of their own party?" No, the Bush administration
is concerned only about political tokenism, as I noted in
last month's issue of CHRIST OR CHAOS..
Pro-lifers in New York cannot let the rush of
patriotic sentiment unleashed as a result of the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks persuade them to
follow George W. Bush like lemmings. They have the moral
imperative to vote only for whoever is the candidate of
the New York State Right to Life Party. The only language
career politicians understand is votes. We have to remind
these shallow, cynical careerists that the blood of the
innocent cries out to God for vengeance, and that we will
remember the blood of the innocent first and foremost
when we vote. We do not exist to enable career
politicians to gain our votes cheaply by the incantation
of slogans and the offering of small tokens now and then.
We have been created to give voice to the King of Kings,
who is in solidarity with every child in every womb as He
Himself was enfleshed in our Lady's virginal and
immaculate womb as a helpless embryo. Would our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ hold a fundraiser for a pro-abort
politician? Then why do we look the other way as a man
who professes to "follow Jesus" does so?
May the coming Feast of the Annunciation, which will
be celebrated this year on Monday, April 8, 2002 (the
feast day, March 25, falls on Monday of Holy Week, and
cannot be celebrated until after the conclusion of the
Easter Octave on Divine Mercy Sunday, April 7), remind us
that every abortion is a crime against the Incarnation.
Every abortion is a crime against the Mother of God, the
Mother of Life, the Mother of us all. Is the woman who
made possible our salvation by her perfect Fiat to the
will of the Father at the Annunciation pleased when those
who support baby-killing are enabled by those who claim
to be against such killing? If our Blessed Mother is not
pleased, then why should we?
Our Lady, Mother of the Word Incarnate, pray for us
to be courageous in our efforts to pray and to work for
the Triumph of your Immaculate Heart, the ultimate
expression of which in this vale of tears is the Social
Kingship of your Son, our King, and your own Queenship
over us men and our civil societies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Thomas Droleskey, speaker and lecturer, is a
professor of political science, the author of CHRIST IN
THE VOTING BOOTH and THERE IS NO CURE FOR THIS CONDITION
(www.hopeofstmonica.com), and editor of the CHRIST OR
CHAOS newsletter.
This column is distributed and archived by Griffin
Internet Syndicate, http://www.griffnews.com. All rights
reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You may forward this column if you use this disclaimer:
Subscribe to Dr. Droleskey's column.
See "Subscribe" at www.griffnews.com
or call 800-513-5053.
|
