Should You Vote for Donald Trump?

After decades of lackluster presidential nominees who embodied various diluted forms of center-right thought, this year we finally had an authentic, passionate movement conservative to rally around in Ted Cruz. Finally we had an opportunity to restore the Constitution, liberty, and prosperity; to take real steps toward ending the massacre of abortion, to shrink government rather than slow its growth, to turn the tide of America’s culture war and put the Left on the defensive for a change. Finally we had our chance to vindicate conservatism against the cancerous moderation espoused by the Republican establishment.

And we blew it. Thanks to a perfect storm of primary voters letting themselves be conned by a clown and divided among a half-dozen mediocrities and vanity candidates, and too few conservative leaders willing to show leadership and make clear that Cruz was the only serious choice, instead we’re now stuck with Donald Trump as the GOP nominee for President of the United States. A choice so manifestly terrible that it seemed inconceivable a year ago. Yet here we are.

So patriots have a decision to make: hold our nose and vote for Trump to protect the country from Hillary Clinton, or stay home to protest Trump’s lack of character, competence, and conservatism? My answer has wavered back and forth over the past year, so I hope this review of all the arguments for and against will help similarly conflicted conservatives find a definitive answer.

Before diving in, let’s dismiss two unserious options out of hand: voting for Hillary Clinton (such a despicable, asinine idea that those who’ve written and published it should be ashamed of themselves), and voting for a third-party or independent candidate (no, not even that obnoxious imbecile Austin Petersen who gives Glenn Beck such a tingle up his leg). It’s simply delusional to believe the latter could actually become president, so if you’re doing it for the symbolism it’s functionally no different than staying home. If you absolutely must put down another name at the ballot box, at least choose a deserving and likely future nominee by writing in Ted Cruz.

(Caveat: if by some bizarre, infinitesimal, miraculous twist of fate a quality conservative somehow uncovers the secret path for an independent candidate to reach the White House, I of course reserve the right to take that back and revise the conclusion of this post.)

That said, let’s begin. Continue reading

New at Live Action: Pro-Lifers Need to Defeat Abortion, Not Compromise With It

In a rare, refreshing instance of someone other than the pro-life blogosphere telling pro-abortion extremists to grow up, Kyle Lorey has a column at Odyssey this week making the case that abortion defenders should stop calling pro-lifers “anti-choice.”

After explaining his decision to not state his own position on abortion in hopes of keeping readers on either side from reading his critique through a predetermined lense, Lorey writes that the label needlessly gets in the way of having productive conversations about abortion and potentially finding areas of compromise…

If the left wishes to advance their cause, they needn’t focus on overturning the entire moral viewpoint of pro-lifers—such an approach is doomed to failure. Instead, they should focus on the nitty-gritty; this allows the debate to focus on specifics and pragmatics as opposed to sweeping generalities about the inherent immorality of the opposing side. If both sides can forget those huge differences, real discourse about state and federal policy can be achieved. Toward this end, divisive rhetorical tools should be curtailed—including the terming of pro-lifers “anti-choice.” If a Republican who wished to compromise with the Democrats referred to them as “communist swine” while discussing policy with them, everyone would be much less willing to even begin to engage.

This is all true enough; there are some things that well-meaning people on both sides should be able to agree on, like actual women’s health care, basic protection for infants who survive abortions, giving abortion-minded and post-abortive women support instead of punishment, and requiring common-sense medical standards to protect women from so-called “medical practitioners” who don’t have their best interests at heart.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

Republicans Can’t Do Anything Right: Sean Duffy Edition

Donald Trump’s authenticity on issues such as ending abortion may be highly questionable, but there’s still a stylistic lesson more conventional Republicans desperately need to learn from him: people are sick of timidity in response to outrageous policies and malicious smears.

Case in point: on Friday, Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) said the following:

I hear a lot in this institution from minority leaders about how their communities are targeted, but what I don’t hear them talk about is how their communities are targeted in abortion […] My liberal friends, Congressional Black Caucus members, talk about fighting for the defenseless, the hopeless, and the downtrodden […] There is no one more hopeless and voiceless than an unborn baby, but their silence is deafening. I can’t hear them. Where are they standing up for their communities, advocating and fighting for their right to life?

So far, so good. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) reacted with the usual hysteria:

After nearly 30 years in public office, not much surprises me anymore. So you can imagine my lack of astonishment when my dear friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Sean Duffy, rolled out abortion statistics among African-American women to lecture black legislators like me about defending the welfare of our constituents […] I don’t expect Rep. Duffy to understand why his comments are offensive […] What he and so many of his Republican colleagues fail to acknowledge is the underlying context behind high abortion rates in African-American communities. High rates of abortion are related to poverty and lack of access to quality care […] Rep. Duffy’s hypocrisy on this issue is as predictable as it is offensive. If he truly, truly wants to fight for the hopeless and voiceless, he should join us.

At which point Duffy falls apart. Moore’s attack is equal parts dishonest and malicious, purely an attempt to distract from his critique by changing the subject. This should have been met with doubling down on the original charge against her and her colleagues, with a healthy dose of shame added in.

Instead, he felt the need to appease his attacker. Continue reading

New at Live Action: Pure Evil of Pro-Abortion Spin in TN Murder Case

From Tennessee comes the sickening story of a 31-year-old woman, Anna Yocca, who faces attempted murder charges for trying to abort her 23-week-old preborn child with a coat hanger. The baby survived – due solely to fears for her own health that led her to go to an emergency room – but he sustained lung, eye, and heart damage that will require medical support for the rest of his life, plus additional health problems that will arise as he grows up.

A mother’s selfish attempt to crudely kill her own son directly caused an innocent child to suffer grievous injuries that will plague him for the rest of his life. We don’t know exactly how debilitating his conditions will be, but at the very least pain and limitations will loom over a childhood that should have been filled with love, laughter, learning, and playing, thanks to the very person who was supposed to comfort and protect him.

So who does the abortion cult have sympathy for? The perpetrator, of course.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Gloria Steinem Accidentally Undermines Pro-Abortion Arguments

Whether she’s sharing blatantly sexist quotes such as: “if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament” or she’s excusing Bill Clinton’s treatment of women simply because he is pro-abortion, Gloria Steinem has always been in a league of her own in the pantheon of radicals who elevate abortion beyond all else.

Now Steinem has written a new book, and a couple of details from both it and its press tour have inadvertently undermined the logic of her cause.

First, Steinem’s book is dedicated to John Sharpe, the doctor who referred her for an illegal abortion in London in 1957. It reads:

Knowing that she had broken an engagement at home to seek an unknown fate, he said, “You must promise me two things. First, you will not tell anyone my name. Second, you will do what you want to do with your life.”

Dear Dr. Sharpe, I believe you, who knew the law was unjust, would not mind if I say this so long after your death: I’ve done the best I could with my life.

Hard as it is to overlook the sickness of casting someone who helped murder a child as a hero, that’s not the most revealing takeaway here.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action: Pelosi Drafts Pope Francis to Fund Planned Parenthood

Ready for the most preposterous manifestation yet of Nancy Pelosi’s pro-abortion devout Catholic shtick? On Thursday, the House Democrat Leader invoked pro-life Pope Francis in the name of her pro-abortion agenda:

Republicans are moving forward with a GOP reconciliation package that once again lays the groundwork for another Republican government shutdown. It’s a waste of time. It will go nowhere in the Senate. It will be their 61st vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they will of course be wanting to defund Planned Parenthood, destroy the Affordable Care Act, dismantle newfound health security for millions of Americans.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Instead we could be working together recognizing a Republican Congress, a Democratic president, the ability for Democrats to use their leverage legislatively to have compromise for the good of the American people. That’s what Pope Francis told us to do. He said leaders should have transparency. That would be wonderful – openness, he said. He used the word openness and pragmatism, and he said we have to move forward for the good of the people. Let’s in the spirit of Francis do that.

Yes, Pelosi has devolved to arguing that the Pope wants politicians to accept a budget that gives millions of dollars to the abortion industry. Let that sink in a minute.

Read the rest at Live Action News.

New at Live Action – Obama Hypocritically Lectures Christians on Inclusion

On Monday, the New York Review of Books released a feature in which Barack Obama sat down with novelist Marilynne Robinson for a chat about the themes of her work, and a few strains of the president’s commentary were astoundingly hypocritical, even for him.

He can’t be that lacking in self-awareness…can he?

[P]art of our system of government was based on us rejecting an exclusive, inclusive—or an exclusive and tightly controlled sense of who is part of the community and who is not, in favor of a more expansive one.

Like, say, a certain class of people that you have enthusiastically chosen to deprive of their constitutional rights and subject to unthinkable violence based on nothing more than their developmental stage and that a major interest group supporting you wants them dead? How do any instances of “exclusion” – real and imagined alike – that Obama might have in mind possibly compare to gerrymandering children out of every American’s most basic protection as members of the community?

Read the rest at Live Action News.