Guns Don’t Kill People, Abortions Do

Following last week’s horrific school shooting in Florida, wherein a killer took seventeen innocent lives, our nation pauses to consider the ramifications. Political rallies have been held, featuring teenage survivors of last week’s shooting; more will follow. The President hosted a White House listening session, featuring heartfelt testimonials from some of those most directly impacted by the shooting.

Among the responses being discussed is an age requirement for purchasing firearms. With age comes life experience. Thus, it seems reasonable that a minor not be allowed to buy something as potentially lethal as a firearm. In seeking perspective, however, might we ask whether deciding to buy a gun is more momentous than deciding to have an abortion?

Of those who buy guns in this country, only a fraction use them to take human life. By contrast, every legal abortion results in the actual taking of an innocent human life. And, while the particulars vary from state to state, minors can get abortions, often without parental knowledge and/or consent.

There is no intent here to draw a comparison between gun violence and abortion, rather to draw a contrast between the level of concern and focus our society applies to one versus the other. It is estimated that between 50 and 60 million pregnancies have been aborted in America since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the procedure in 1973.

Seventeen dead in Florida is a tragedy. 50 to 60 million dead in America is a statistic. When might we pause, as a nation, to consider the ramifications of that?


A Narrative of Which They Are Certain

One recalls rhetoric from the days of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court case born of the heavily contested presidential election of 2000. Democrats claimed they were certain — absolutely certain! — that once the votes in certain Florida counties were re-counted, Al Gore would emerge the winner of Florida’s electoral votes, and the U.S. Presidency. They were … of course … wrong.

Those votes ultimately were re-counted, and Mr. Bush still emerged the winner; such news was less than a footnote to the Liberal Media Complex, who continued to tout their preferred narrative that the Supreme Court, not the voters, improperly gave Mr. Bush a presidency actually won by Mr. Gore.

There was the feckless Dan Rather, of CBS News fame, and his certainty — absolute certainty! — of a narrative whereby George W. Bush had used family connections to avoid the Vietnam draft. However, the foundation for Mr. Rather’s purported journalistic scoop, intended to swing the 2004 presidential election in Democrat John Kerry’s favor, rested on forged documents. And a shamed Dan Rather left his anchor desk at CBS in disgrace.

Will those on the left ever learn?

Now, we have the Liberal Media Complex and their scandal du jour of ‘collusion’ (whatever that means) between the Donald Trump Campaign and the Russian government, and how said ‘collusion’ resulted in Hillary Clinton’s rejection by American voters in 2016. Let’s face it, Hillary and the Democrats had every imaginable advantage, including oodles and gobs of money (considered the ‘mother’s milk’ of presidential politics, until Donald Trump came along), the unbridled and fawning support of establishment media and the Hollywood set, and, lest we forget, a sitting U.S. president with a known penchant for deploying instruments of the federal government against his political opponents.

And Hillary still lost … a reality the political left simply will not accept.

They have chosen a narrative upon which to rest their delusion, the aforementioned, of ‘collusion’ between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government, to deny Hillary a victory rightfully hers. The none too minor detail missing from their narrative, however, is … any evidence that it’s true … for none has come to light. But that doesn’t stop determined Democrats and their allies on the left from continuing to tout a narrative of which they are certain — absolutely certain!

Scalia’s Legacy and the Danger of Politicization

The untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia calls to mind his immense intellect and landmark legal opinions, as well as a great humanity appreciated by those who knew him. His life and career will impact American culture for many years to come.

From the time of his appointment by President Ronald Reagan up until now, he deftly utilized his position on the U.S. Supreme Court to establish and maintain roadblocks to progressivism’s politicization of the American judiciary. He emerged, and remained, a savior of our constitutional republic’s founding document. The significance of that legacy is already observable.

One need merely consider how liberals seek to politicize all aspects of contemporary life, even the weather — ‘global warming’ anyone? President Obama (in the fashion of a true Marxist, for whom ‘revolution’ is perpetual) has politicized the very machinations of the federal bureaucracy, such as the IRS, the EPA and the U.S. Justice Department. These institutions must function apart from political considerations for the phrase ‘Rule of Law’ to have meaning. The Obama Administration has discarded such meaning. If the rest of American society follows suit, the end of our republic is nigh.

In the hours after Justice Scalia’s death, Mr. Obama displayed his arrogance and disrespect by announcing his intent to appoint a replacement. Thus, he injected politics into the matter, before Antonin Scalia’s dead body had even been returned to Washington, DC.

Standing in stark contrast is Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence, at its heart a desire to rid the courts of political activism, and return our judiciary to the role our nation’s founders intended it to have. His successor must be one who carries the torch forward — another savior.

SCOTUS Does It Again


ObamaCare remains a train wreck, and the U.S. Supreme Court has once again kept it hoisted atop the flimsiest of rails.

Chief Justice John Roberts penned today’s six-justice majority opinion, in King v. Burwell, upholding the Obama Administration’s provision of health insurance subsidies via federally established health care exchanges. The court did so despite the fact that the language of the ObamaCare statute provides no such federal authority, and only authorizes subsidies via exchanges established by the states.

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged the problematic nature of ObamaCare’s statutory language, but he went on to state, “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

One could also argue in the converse, that a hyper-partisan, Democrat-controlled Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, without a single Republican vote, in order to weaken America’s health care system, not to improve it; and that they intended to pave the way for the eventual reconstitution of health care in America under a socialist model.

Chief Justice Roberts chose to embrace the former argument, and ignore the latter. He and five other Justices have based their interpretation of Congressional intent not on the language Congressional Democrats employed when drafting ObamaCare in 2010, but rather on the rhetoric they now employ in defense of their ill-conceived, ill-gotten health care scheme.

The Roberts rationale aims toward a political end. Dressing it up in a legal opinion does not change that sad reality.