Murdering Babies

The Heritage Foundation reminds us:

[C]urrent federal law recognizes that all infants born at any stage of development, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the birth, are “persons.” But this recognition alone is insufficient to provide protections for infants born alive following an attempted abortion. The federal Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would augment current law to require that proper medical care be given to an infant born alive following an abortion procedure and impose criminal consequences on health care providers who violate the law.

In the past decade, states have enacted more than 300 laws that protect innocent human life. In response to this wave of significant pro-life victories, some state legislatures across the country are passing or considering sweeping pro-abortion legislation that far exceeds Roe v. Wade and its progeny. These bills are radically out of step with the American people’s consensus that abortion should be significantly restricted.1

Knights of Columbus, “Americans’ Opinions on Abortion,” January 2019, http://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/communications/american-attitudes-abortion-knights-of-columbus-marist-poll-slides.pdf (accessed February 20, 2019).

While the bills in various states differ based on current state law, they have generally sought to allow for elective abortion up to birth, reduce or eliminate health and safety standards for clinics and practitioners, and end requirements to provide medical care to babies born alive following an abortion procedure.

In response to these radical proposals, Members of the United States Congress are working to advance pro-life policies, including the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, to protect women and their babies—born and unborn.

Which was introduced by my Senator, Ben Sasse. As most of you know, I have my problems with Sen Sasse, based mostly on his inability to see why we elected Donald Trump, but here there is no daylight between us at all. It’s something that it is repulsive that we need, but need it we do. As some states introduce bills that allow abortion (infanticide, really) during labor, and some claim proudly, even after birth.

That bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, was defeated in the Senate, with every Democrat presidential contender voting against it. Every One of them: Truly the party of death. David Harsanyi tells us:

Senate Democrats unsurprisingly struggled to find an effective way to lie about opposing a bill that prohibits abortion in the fourth trimester. Some of them maintained that Sasse’s bill was superfluous because all the things in it were already illegal. Others claimed the bill would “restrict doctors from making case-by-case decisions about what is best for infants and mothers.” Still others claimed the practice never ever happens. Other Democrats, who support government intervention in every nook and cranny of human existence, argued that tough choices should only be the domain of women and their doctors, not the state. Many of them saw no conflict between these ideas and argued all these things at the very same time.

Sen. Patty Murray claimed the bill was “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family” and that “proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already illegal.” This is untrue, regardless of a full-court press from Democrats and the media. As bills in both Virginia and New York clearly illustrate, the practice isn’t illegal. Both bills specifically provide legal protections for doctors who terminate babies who survive abortion attempts.

This was the practice Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia hamfistedly explained to us on video, forgetting to use the standard euphemisms typically used to conceal the horrific specifics of the procedure. In New York, abortion—and post-birth termination—of a viable, once-healthy infant is legal through the entire pregnancy, and after, for virtually any reason. The rite of abortion is so intrinsic to progressive ideology (and coffers) that not one major player on the left had the moral spine to condemn either.

And so the Democrats continue to be the party that wants to protect the guilty, such as MS-13, while killing the completely innocent, like newborn babies. [Break time so you can go throw up, like I want to] What a craven lot they are.

But the American people are onto them. CNS tells us that in the last month, polling has detected a seismic shift in views of abortion.

A new, national survey on the heels of legislation in New York and Virginia to allow abortion up to the moment of birth shows a major shift to the pro-life side among Democrats and young people, according to the Marist College for Public Opinion and the Knights of Columbus.

The Feb. 12-17 survey revealed that in just one month, the number of Democrats who identified as pro-life shifted from 20% to 34%. Also, the number of Democrats identifying as “pro-choice” fell from 75% to 61%. That’s a 14-percentage point swing in only four weeks.

For Americans age 45 and younger, the shift was from 28% identifying as pro-life four weeks ago to 47% today; the percentage of young people who said they were “pro-choice” fell from 65% to 48%.

So, today, 47% of young people identify as pro-life vs. 48% who say they are “pro-choice.”

“Current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced – and very measurable – way,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of The Marist Poll, in a statement.

Well, that is good news, but until it seeps into every American politician’s thick head that it is wrong to murder babies, there is more to do. So, let’s get to doing.

Grace, Jussie Smollett, and Atticus Finch

Actors Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch and Brock Peters as Tom Robinson in the film ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’, 1962. (Photo by Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images)

Ben Domenech had some thoughts that started with the Jussie Smollett fake crime, but they didn’t stop there. All in all a very good Federalist piece.

The Jussie Smollett claims of surviving an attack by racist, homophobic, MAGA-hat wearing supporters of President Trump prompted a swathe of too-soon takes about what his reported incident says about the country, with an assist from all too gullible members of the media, and a few presidential candidates too. Now, with a bit of a remove and thanks to the dogged reporting of local Chicago reporters, the story of this botched attempt at a hate crime hoax takes on a very different character. John McWhorter argues that it’s an indication of the rise of “victimhood chic” – and he’s right. But there’s something else here, too – a lesson in the shifts in assumption about our political opponents, and the decline of grace in America.

Consider Aaron Sorkin’s twist on the dramatic tale of another race-focused hoax, in his Broadway version of ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’. As you may know, this Jeff Daniels’ led version of the story is meant to be the tale from an adult perspective, and Sorkin does a good job of explaining the differences in a recent sit-down with Marc Maron. Sorkin struggled with giving Atticus Finch a flaw – necessary for the iconic figure to have a character arc. From the perspective of Scout the child, Atticus can do no wrong. But this is an adult take, so Atticus must become Atticus over the course of the play.

The flaw Sorkin chose to inject into Finch is telling: that he shows too much grace and forgiveness toward racists. In the interview with Maron at around the 30 minute mark, Sorkin explicitly says that “There were fine people on both sides” is the same as “liberal high mindedness that we’re going to try and understand everyone” and that “it’s bullshit.” In Sorkin’s view, it speaks to the aggressive politics of the times – that Finch is too forgiving of the racism of those who surround him, and that “sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and fight.”

I, and I suspect you, can certainly sympathize with both sides here. We struggle to see the good in our opponents, just as we always have, even as we struggle with the old beast, that wants to take our revenge, even at the cost of the rule of law. That we so far have, is, I think, the mark of a very high civilization. It’s telling I think that in the United States, and in Britain, the forces of tradition display the prudence that Jefferson spoke of, while the French, the Germans, the Italians, and others take to the streets, in large numbers. But we, the Anglos-Saxons, who freed all Europe in the last century, stiffen our upper lips and fight off the urge to revolt, saying there are some fine people on the left. But as demonstrated in the past, there is a point where that forbearance has outlived its usefulness, and then the wrath of the Anglo-Saxons come into play. It is never a pretty sight, for then, these words become operative.

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on, His truth is marching

Cromwell, just as much as Sherman, would recognize those words.

Ben goes on to quote C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity to good effect.

“For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life—namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. . . . Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.

“Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere, he can be cured and made human again.

“The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, “Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,” or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker.

“If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything—God and our friends and ourselves included—as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.”

He is, of course, correct. We can see it happening with the left, and we can feel the urge in ourselves to go there, as well. But, as Ben ends.

This is a question about whether we are going back into darkness. Belief that your tribe is good and other tribes are evil is what everyone thought for most of human history. The human heart tends toward tribalism before tolerance. We can go back to that world. It still lives in all of us. Fighting it is the challenge, particularly at a time when the most audacious thing you can do is show some grace.

History of St. Valentine

Not St. Valentine, but a reminder of how much we need women (or men), and God, in our lives

FR. WILLIAM SAUNDERS

Who was Saint Valentine and how did he come to inspire Valentine’s Day?

In the early martyrologies, three different St. Valentines are mentioned, all sharing Feb. 14 for a feast day. Unfortunately, the historical record is sparse. The first St. Valentine was a priest and physician in Rome. He along with St. Marius and his family comforted the martyrs during the persecution of Emperor Claudius II, the Goth. Eventually, St. Valentine was also arrested, condemned to death for his faith, beaten with clubs, and finally beheaded on Feb. 14, AD 270. He was buried on the Flaminian Way. Later, Pope Julius I (333-356) built a basilica at the site which preserved St. Valentine’s tomb. Archeological digs in the 1500s and 1800s have found evidence of the tomb of St. Valentine. However, in the thirteenth century, his relics were transferred to the Church of Saint Praxedes near the Basilica of St. Mary Major, where they remain today. Also, a small church was built near the Flaminian Gate of Rome which is now known as the Porta del Popolo but was called in the 12th century “the Gate of St. Valentine,” as noted by the early British historian William Somerset (also known as William of Malmesbury, d. 1143), who ranks after St. Bede in authority.

The second St. Valentine was the Bishop of Interamna (now Terni, located about 60 miles from Rome). Under the orders of Prefect Placidus, he too was arrested, scourged, and decapitated, again suffering persecution during the time of Emperor Claudius II.

The third St. Valentine suffered martyrdom in Africa with several companions. However, nothing further is known about this saint. In all, these men, each named St. Valentine, showed heroic love for the Lord and His Church.

The popular customs of showing love and affection on St. Valentine’s Day is almost a coincidence with the feast day of the saint: During the Medieval Age, a common belief in England and France was that birds began to pair on Feb.14, “half-way through the second month of the year.” Chaucer wrote in his “Parliament of Foules” (in Old English): “For this was on Seynt Valentyne’s day, When every foul cometh ther to choose his mate.” For this reason, the day was dedicated to “lovers” and prompted the sending of letters, gifts, or other signs of affection.

Continue reading History of St. Valentine. It’s an interesting story.

And that’s the story, as I’ve always known. That part of this post was originally published in 2013, and while there was more of it, it’s not overly relevant now. The day before I received one of those dreaded phone calls. My oldest sister died that day, and the rest of the post was me explaining why Jessica, my fairly new co-blogger at the time, would be taking over for a few days. And she did her usual superb job. I go back sometimes and read her posts, I did yesterday, and it never fails to amaze me how she could say so much in about 500 words, I’m almost always at 7-800 and not as clear as she was. Oh well. Things always change, and we carry on.

In any case, I read an article yesterday about how Charles Wesley, who along with his brother John, founded Methodism, found that loving his wife increased his love of God, and vice versa as well. I wonder if that isn’t true for many of those we admire so much, being both some of the best Christians we know and having those amazing long and seemingly really good marriages as well.

The “Lesser” Wesley

Accounts of the great evangelical revival of the 18th century often neglect the life and thought of Charles Wesley (1707–1788). He wrote well over 7,000 hymns, but his older brother John has almost always been honored as the greater of the two men. Even as a child, Charles tended to be sickly, and illness plagued him for much of his life.

Yet Charles was raised in the same home as his brother John, listening to their father, Samuel Wesley Sr., preach in the Epworth church in Lincolnshire, England. Charles, likewise, learned under the tutelage of their assiduous mother, Susanna, who guided the children in their earliest years and taught them the basics of Christian belief and practice.

At Oxford, Charles was initially rather indifferent to matters of faith. After a year of study, however, he recognized the need to set new patterns. Charles began to take the religious life more seriously, celebrated the Lord’s Supper weekly, and convinced a few of his friends to accompany him in the process.

Do read this one as well, it’ll make you smile (or at least it did me!) and help you to recognize the really important things in life. When I first wrote this, I said, “I was going to continue this with some thoughts on how we celebrate the day now. You know, all the money we spend and how every girl needs a dozen roses or a 4½ foot tall teddy bear and such.”

It’s true, that outward swag doesn’t really mean much, except perhaps to remind her you didn’t forget and that’s important. But what is really important is to love and respect each other. That I think is the key to loving each other, and maybe to loving God as well. At least that’s my 2¢ worth. I’m probably overcharging you though. I think I’m maybe a decent Christian, but I’m sitting here alone, having been divorced for over 20 years, so do as I say, not as I did.

SOTU 2019, and The Old Dominion blows up

The President gave an outstanding SOTU the other night, If you missed it, here it is. I know the feeling, I finally found enough time last night.

One of the things that is very rare is that he is very good with a set piece speech like this, while also being very good with the off the cuff ones, like his rallies. Very unusual for anyone to be good at both. PowerLine and others report that CBS and CNN snap polls found 76% approval.

He’s got a good message, a quite traditional pro-America message when he can get it through the media, who does their best to stifle it. The shutdown delay, and associated hype, probably helped him, as well.

One of the losers of the night was the Dems and their Mean Girl Caucus. It’s not a good look when Congresscritters (who are unpopular, all on their own) remind all and sundry of both the cool kids in junior high and the KKK. You know, like this.

And that is how they came off to me, and probably a lot of others. Sitting there stone-faced at the receipt of much good news about America, only cheering for themselves. As usual.

Then there is the mess the Dims have made in Virginia. Melanie Phillips explains it well.

But now Democrats have revealed a brutalised contempt for life itself.

In the Virginia assembly, Democrat delegate Kathy Tran proposed a law loosening restrictions on abortion in the final stages of pregnancy. She later confirmed that this would permit the termination of a pregnancy up to the very moment of delivery, in other words after labour had started.

The capacity to keep premature babies alive at an ever earlier stage in pregnancy has produced a fraught debate about the need to reduce the abortion time limit. But if a baby is in the process of being born, it is by definition capable of life. It is not longer a foetus; it is indisputably a baby on its way into the world. The suggestion that it might be killed at the very moment of its birth is grotesque – and it’s hard to understand how in practice this could be done without committing infanticide.

The Tran bill failed to pass, but not before it was defended by Virginia’s Democrat governor Ralph Northam, who is himself a paediatric neurologist. He told a WTOP radio show that Tran’s comments were “blown out of proportion” and said third-trimester abortions were rare.

These were done, he said, “in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s not viable. If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen.The infant would be delivered. The infant would be comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion”.

Northam was immediately accused of promoting infanticide, an accusation he vehemently denied. His spokeswoman said he had been “talking about prognosis and medical treatment, not ending the life of a delivered baby”; his words were being taken out of context by Republicans, she said, and the notion that he would approve of killing infants was “disgusting.”

But what else would any such resuscitation “discussion” be about? Moreover, Tran’s proposed measure wasn’t about non-viable foetuses or catastrophic deformities or allowing terribly sick newborns to die. It was instead about third-trimester abortion, the deliberate extinction of any viable infant life, in circumstances where continuing with the pregnancy was deemed to threaten the mother’s life or her physical or mental health.

You already know my views, I could be persuaded that anyone espousing such views should be aborted themselves before they can hurt more kids. YMMV, but I’d be surprised.

In any case, the world blew up for Dims in Virginia, Melanie again.

So either Northam was being disingenuous, or he didn’t understand what Tran’s proposals actually were.

What then happened, however, graphically demonstrated how the Democrats are now being sucked into a woke vortex of their own making. It was revealed that in 1984 Northam had featured, on his medical-school yearbook page, a photograph of a man in blackface and a man in a KuKluxKlan hood. Northam immediately apologised for appearing in the picture; then said that neither person in the photograph was him; then he said he had put on blackface decades ago to look like Michael Jackson for a dance contest.

All hell then broke loose and Northam’s future as Virginia’s governor – an office he won after accusing his opponents of racism – is now in jeopardy.

But Virginia’s Democrats then descended into yet another circle of politically correct hell. Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark Herring, admitted that he also had worn blackface in the 1980s. And Democratic Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, who was poised to succeed Northam if he was hounded out of office, was suddenly accused by a fellow Democrat of sexual assault.

It gets better. The Atlantic reports:

“Fairfax has emphatically denied any wrongdoing and says he had a consensual sexual encounter with his accuser, Vanessa Tyson, a professor of politics at Scripps College. (He has also accusedLevar Stoney, a rival Democrat who is mayor of Richmond, of spreading the story. Stoney denies doing so.) This week, Tyson hired the same law firm that represented Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her in high school. Fairfax has also refused to resign.”

So now Virginia’s top three Democrat officials are simultaneously accused of advocating infanticide, displaying racial bigotry and committing sexual assault. […]

What’s happened in Virginia is that the cultural firebombs that the left repeatedly throws at its opponents over race, sexual violence and abortion have suddenly blown back at them and are setting their hair alight. As Rich Lowry writes, in the coming primary season no Democrat will be safe.

“Any lapses will be interpreted through the most hostile lens, made all the more brutal by the competition of a large field of candidates vying for the approval of a radicalized base. The Democrat nomination battle might as well be fought on the campus of Oberlin College and officiated by the director of the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion”.

You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

Meanwhile, over a sickening culture of institutionalised dehumanisation no liberal progressive turns a hair. Why should they? They created it.

In other words, conservatives are fighting back, using the tools the Dims developed and have been using forever. It’s time and way past time.

The Democratic Party is brutalised and degraded, perhaps irrevocably. And millions of decent Americans are watching this political and cultural death spiral, and drawing their own horrified conclusions.

As that old Progressive Democrat Harry S Truman said, “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Thank God.

Slaughtering the Innocents

Matthew writes:

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

We call this The Slaughter of the Innocents, and those Innocents are the first Saints of our church. That is as it should be. But we in the United States, have butchered over 61 million children even younger than that since 1973. We will kill another 840 today. That is the entire population of the town I grew up in – every day.

Why? The excuses are legion, and few of them amount to anything more than a woman’s convenience. That seems to be enough reason to butcher a child using methods that would cause a packing house to be shut down in horror.

But even this isn’t enough, the left thinks a woman should be able to kill her baby even after it is born, or as it is being born, that is what the new New York law allows, as does the one the Virginia Senate defeated last week. Virginia’s governor proudly proclaimed that it would allow the killing of an infant after it was born.

Georgi Boorman writing in The Federalist reminds us. I quote little of it, read it all, it’s exceptionally well done.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who just made deeply troubling comments on abortion, and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who just signed the country’s most radical abortion law, have been the subject of intense ire in recent days. The outrage is coming not just coming from “radical” pro-lifers, but people from across the political spectrum.

Why? Because virtually no one but the far left believes it is morally acceptable to allow infants to be murdered seconds before birth, or to be left to die after delivery at the behest of the mother.

Yet the nation has been shocked by radical left’s boldness in their mission to define preborn human beings as disposable non-persons. Where is this evil coming from, and how do we stop it?

The Slaughter of the Young and the Elderly

Abortion and infanticide have historically been common practices. In the first century AD, infanticide was a common and culturally accepted practice across the world. The murder of infants was a regular occurrence in Europe into the Middle Ages and beyond, despite being condemned by both church and state.

The practice was not confined to the desperate, illiterate, impoverished masses, as if “enlightened” thinkers knew better. The Twelve Tables of Roman Law, admired by Cicero, contains the command that, “A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed.”

Likewise, the wealthy first century Roman philosopher Seneca once wrote, “We doom scabby sheep to the knife, lest they should infect our flocks. We destroy monstrous births, and we also drown our children if they are born weakly or unnaturally formed; to separate what is useless from what is sound is an act, not of anger, but of reason.” This from a Stoic, who supposedly believed virtue to be the highest good. Notably, Seneca was Nero’s tutor.

Infanticide was an acknowledged option for any child who was deformed, sickly, of uncertain paternity, the wrong sex, or simply unnecessary to the household. Aristotle, revered by many a university professor, wrote that, “As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared,” and “if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it before it has developed sensation and life.”

The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans all practiced child sacrifice to appease their gods. The Chimú civilization, located in what is now Peru, sacrificed more than 140 children at one time some 550 years ago. The children’s chests were slashed open, presumably to remove their hearts.

The citizens of the powerful ancient city Carthage in Phoenicia ritually sacrificed their infants. Archaeologists believe the preferred age of sacrificial infants was less than three months old. According to the writing of early AD Greek biographer Plutarch, “But with full knowledge and understanding [the Carthaginians] offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds.”

The residents of the broader region of Canaan (late second millennium B.C.) were condemned numerous times by the ancient prophets of Israel for their child sacrifice. The prophet Jeremiah, in his judgment against apostate Israel, foretold that the valley of Hinnom, where the Israelites were sacrificing children to Baal, would be called “the valley of Slaughter” (Jeremiah 19:5-6).

Evidence for both ritualistic and utilitarian murder can be gathered from around the globe. In times of famine, the Inuit would abandon the elderly (both with and without consent) or dispense of them by quicker means. The Bactrians of ancient Persia were reported to have fed their sick and elderly to dogs trained especially for this purpose. Nearby cultures were supposed to have had similar senicidal customs. Among the Massagetae, Herodotus wrote that, “Human life does not come to its natural close with this people,” but that the people sacrificed their elderly, boiled their flesh, and ate it.

Not every single community on earth had such evil practices, but the embrace of death as the first solution to a family or tribe’s problems has been wickedly banal, historically speaking.

This ended as Christianity spread its influence until most of us are horrified reading such accounts, but as Christianity starts to recede these practices come back. Infanticide (including what we euphemize as abortion) leads the way, but killing the elderly and infirm lurks not far behind. In fact, they too have made their appearance, especially in government-run healthcare, such as the British NHS.

 Tertullian, an early church father, wrote in “Apologia”: “In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb…To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed.”

Somehow it’s always those who think they are our betters, like the Democrats (and a fair number of Republicans as well, although fewer than they used to be). It seems to be a mark of the elites, to murder those they deem less exalted. Like Herod, and like Governor Northam. I see no difference between them.

A Letter to Nick Sandmann of Covington Catholic

It is not often, in fact, it is quite rare, for an Orthodox Rabbi to speak for this stick-in-the-mud Lutheran. Actually, it’s unheard of, especially to a bunch of Catholic kids. Yet it has happened. It is here, from Dov Fischer.

Dear Nick,

It now is some ten days since you unintentionally became famous, and you blessedly no longer are the news outside Covington. But I write to tell you that you are not forgotten for many of us whom you made proud. That includes me, an Orthodox Rabbi.

Obama once said that, if he had had a son, it would have been a boy like Trayvon Martin. Nicholas, I do not doubt that. Not for a moment. I would rather set the boys of CovCath as role models.

Nick, you came with a bunch of other kids from CovCath to Washington, D.C. to march for life and to have some clean fun in the nation’s capital. That is so noble, and that used to be what America is all about: kids getting to visit Washington, D.C., maybe meeting their Congressional representative and getting to sit in the gallery, maybe getting to visit the National Archives, the Smithsonian, the FBI building, Ford’s Theater, the Jefferson Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial, the Reflecting Pool, the Washington Monument. That was the big visit and family trip that teens all over this country hoped they one day could do with their parents and siblings. And maybe one day, if your red hat’s message of hope and change comes true, we all can make America great again.

On the day of CovCath’s visit, though, you found that all around you, millions of other Americans want the right to tear apart fetuses limb from limb. Women and men who are too tired or lazy to take simple precautions that they learn in California and New York elementary school classes end up causing an unwanted pregnancy and choose to undo their laziness and gross irresponsibility by paying someone to tear apart the fetus later. In the old days, when science was less advanced, they fooled themselves into thinking that a fetus has no life form to it, was just a collection of random cells. But now the science is settled: the heart beats, the body nourishes, the life exists. In a world of Andrew Cuomos and Kermit Gosnells, you came to defend life.

You also came wearing a MAGA hat. Good for you! Some people in this country believe that everyone except for the kids at CovCath has a right to free speech. They cheer high school drop-outs who say “F – – – Trump.” They photograph themselves holding a bloody decapitated head representing the President of the United States. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that free speech even includes the right to burn the American flag and to dance naked at strip clubs. So, Nick, our Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights so that kids at Covington Catholic and others in yeshivas throughout the United States and others who are older and perhaps not even religiously trained may wear a hat that says “Make America Great Again.” Those words are not thefighting words of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), nor a Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), incitement to imminent lawless action but words of hope and change: hope for a change from the Wasted Obama Decade.

In America we protect the biased Left mediacracy — people like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. These people report mostly true on local interest stories like a county fair or a new restaurant, but they intentionally distort and lie deliberately on national public-interest stories. You know that first-hand because you now have experienced it directly. That is why the President calls them “the enemy of the people” — because they are. They deliberately distort the truth and reality of what is happening in order to mislead the public into believing an alternate reality. When Walter Duranty of the sameNew York Times did that during the Stalin Years, he and theNew York Times contributed to the murder of millions of people who otherwise might have been saved if the truth of the Golodomor had come out. Instead, the people died, murdered by the enemies of the people. The same New York Times in a small way helped Hitler gas, bury, and incinerate millions of Jews during the Holocaust by hiding his crimes from the public. Did you know that the Times ran 23,000 front-page stories from 1939-1945, of which 11,500 were about the World War — but only twenty-six about Hitler’s mistreatment of Jews? Of course these evil villains are the enemies of the people.

Read it all, it’s the best thing I’ve read in quite a while. And yes, I agree with Rabbi Fischer completely. Well said, sir.

In a related matter, I not that the Governor of Virginia is openly supporting a bill that will allow the killing of an already born child. We have a word for that. It is murder, but this loon thinks it is fine. Perhaps he should be aborted.

%d bloggers like this: