A Pragmatic Conservative Approach To The Debate

***Chapter Seventeen--Conservative Debate Handbook***

Issues In The Debate Over Abortion

[And How To Deal With Them Effectively]

Wrong approaches to debate. The essential facts. Focus on what is undeniable. The general assault on the family and traditional values. The romantic ethic as a weapon. How to persuade others to a maximum extent; to rally the most possible support. Hanging together, or hanging apart. How to hang your enemy instead.

The Abortion question is a legal issue. It is also a moral issue. It is also a biological, sociological and psychological issue. Unhappily, it evokes such strong feelings that the debate frequently (and rapidly) becomes tangential to the real issues, legal or moral. In an era distinguished by imprecise thought patterns and advocacy by 30 second sound bites, the quality of debate on Abortion tends to be even poorer than on other issues. This phenomenon largely reflects the fact that many of the participants in that debate, on one side or the other, are of the "single issue" variety; people who define their associations, allegiances and voting patterns, by attitudes on Abortion; treating one's position on Abortion as the determinant--the litmus test--for love or hate, virtue or vice, in their world view.

This sort of obsession never serves a constructive purpose. It isolates those in its grip from their contemporaries, and renders them peculiarly unable to persuade those who do not share the obsession. From the standpoint of the Conservative, seeking to restore legal prohibitions on Abortion, it creates numerous problems not easy to solve or negotiate. Not the least of these is how to keep those, who are obsessed, from hurting the very cause to which they are so totally committed.

How Not To Fight Abortion

Because of this obvious disadvantage, we are going to begin this treatise on how to debate against legal abortion, by detailing some of the things that one should never do; not if one wants to argue effectively. In this, we do not mean to appear unduly critical of the intentions or methods of those who have been, and will doubtless continue to be, on the "firing line." There are many dedicated people, by no means all obsessed, who have worked very hard on this issue, yet have never really been trained in the effective projection of a system of values. That they have made mistakes, was only to be expected. Our hope is that they will find this essay constructive.

A general point, before going into the most obvious tactical mistakes: While it may be a good idea to keep emotionally laden adjectives and adverbs, as well as every form of hyperbole, out of one's arguments on any subject, it is not essential in every situation. Indeed, there are a few instances where a feel good effect on the speaker, and his apparent sincerity, may offset an appearance of over-reaching. But with issues where emotions run particularly high on both sides, it is imperative that one avoid the use of terms which interject an aspect where reason is superseded by emotional commitment. The sense of this should be readily apparent, if one will look not at an issue on which he or she feels strongly, but on one on which others feel strongly and he is largely indifferent. In an overly emotional argument, the committed on each side get whipped up; but the uncommitted tend to dismiss (or "tune-out") both arguments. (They will be looking at their watches, and planning what they will do when they are able to get away from all those "nasty and argumentative people.")

Let us be specific. Avoid calling abortion "murder." Murder involves the violation of a law. Abortion was not treated as "murder" in any American jurisdiction that we know of, even before the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade struck down State statutes that made it a crime. Calling it "murder" therefore begs the question. It is a weak argument, which offends some of the people that you are trying to persuade. Similar considerations militate against the use of such terms as "genocide" or "holocaust." The killing of unborn babies has not been directed at any race or ethnic group, and it has not involved a great conflagration or fire.

The single worst mistake that those fighting legalized abortion make, from a public relations standpoint, is to force a pregnant but unmarried young women to run a sort of gauntlet outside an abortion clinic. Whatever one might want to do or say to persuade anyone that abortion is immoral, that a young life is sacred; the moment when a scared, embarrassed and unmarried teenager walks into a clinic, is not the time for heavy handed protest. Anything beyond a kindly invitation, in a reassuring tone, to explore other options, is going to be counter-productive--if not as to the girl, herself, certainly as to any hope to reach the uncommitted spectator.

There may be a time in life to vent anger against what one believes is wrong. There are certainly times and places to protest against injustice, or flawed public policy. There are certainly proper targets for such protest. But a scared and frightened teenager, simply availing herself of what seems to be a "solution" to an immediate problem, one which her political society allows her, is not such a target. And her frightened and embarrassed walk to a clinic, prepared to offer that "solution," is not the time or place for that protest.

The time to try to reach the teenaged girl is before she gets in "trouble" or, if too late there, before she makes the decision to go to the clinic. We understand that some protestors sincerely believe that they can save a baby. Yet for how many of those they do "persuade" to turn around after an ugly scene, do they really persuade not to come back later. And how many more babies will be aborted, for every year we fail to bring effective public opinion around to understand why the present policy must be reversed. Good public relations are important. You cannot appear to be bullying the hapless and the helpless, and expect to advance a cause.. Concentrate fire on those who make the evil, you seek to arrest, legally possible .

The next major mistake that the anti-abortion forces make is in extrapolating from the useful slogan, The Right To Life. [There is a right to life, of course, but the phrase is being used here as a motto or short-cut to avoid the necessity for a lengthy explanation of what the issue is really about.] The abortion issue is not about a right to life in general. It is about the very particular right of the unborn baby to be born. The mistake in broadening the concept to encompass other issues, is that you burden the essential issue with negative arguments which have nothing whatever to do with that particular issue. For example, "Liberals" are very fond of pointing out that most of the Conservatives, who speak about "the right to life," also advocate Capital Punishment.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with trying to protect the unborn innocent, while trying to terminate convicted murderers, aggravated rapists and arsonists, etc.. The glitch only comes from the over-emphasis on a general "right to life," which some abortion foes drift into in trying to broaden the appeal by spreading their focus to include questions surrounding euthanasia. This attempt to broaden actually has exactly the opposite effect. It tends to narrow, not expand, the potential ideological constituency for stopping the killing of the innocent, not only by facilitating a diversion onto the subject of Capital Punishment, but also by slipping into a very different complex of end of life issues, in which it is very easy to become ideologically lost.

Consider a recent effort by a number of fairly Conservative Congressmen to obtain Federal intervention to proscribe the effectuation of an Oregon initiative to allow physician assisted suicide. Regardless of one's view on the morality of that initiative, there was no Federal issue involved. And the perceived willingness of some Conservatives to seek a Liberal interpretation of the Constitution to try to force their moral judgment on the people of Oregon, could serve no purpose but to undermine Conservative credibility on many other issues. One suspects that the imprecise focus of the anti-Abortion movement contributed to this ill conceived foray, which clearly tended to hurt the very cause most dear to its adherents. The action not only undermined Conservative credibility, in general. It ignored the fact that the very Court decision, which originally legalized abortion, was itself just such an attack on the traditional rights of the States to manage their own affairs on questions of public safety and morality.

To fully appreciate, however, just why confusing the plight of unborn babies with issues affecting the elderly is such a very bad idea, one needs to look more closely at the dynamics of "health care" in today's America. The threat to the elderly does not come from any public movement for involuntary euthanasia. There is no such movement. And while abortion kills thousands of unborn babies every day, one can almost count on the fingers of one hand, the numbers of those, in usually terminal conditions, who are voluntarily euthanized to escape pain and suffering in any given year. That is not the major issue affecting the elderly; and stressing it as a kindred issue, only serves to trivialize the effect of legalized abortion, as well as demonstrate serious insensitivity to another real problem. As a tactic, it further undermines the credibility of the one raising the issue, by suggesting a certain paranoia.

The real problem for the elderly, today, is that with Federal involvement in medicine, the great increase in life supporting technology, and the huge increase in the cost of medical services, there is actual financial incentive to keep people alive artificially, long after their lives have lost most or all capacity for normal interaction with others, or for enjoying the customary pleasures of human existence. There are many, many times, as many older Americans who are afraid of being kept alive, artificially, when they have lost even basic human dignity, than there are those who fear that their lives may be unnaturally shortened. To be kept alive, at the expense of your family--or of the inheritance you intended to leave your family, which is much the same thing--simply because someone has the technology to do so, when you have lost both reason and the capacity for meaningful action, is close to being the ultimate human nightmare.

Effective debate often comes down to image projection--"one picture being worth a thousand words," really an understatement--and the projection of an image of one who is senile, incontinent, and terminally ill, being kept alive by tubes into various parts of his anatomy, has nothing to do with the cause of the unborn. It is not one calculated to persuade anyone not already committed.

The other pitfall in the abortion debate, which Conservatives actually interested in accomplishing something positive must avoid, is any identification with or support for those who take the law into their own hands by committing criminal acts, either against abortion clinics or those who perform abortions. A belief that someone else is doing something immoral or reprehensible, does not anoint one as some sort of moral avenger. None of us are appointed by God to keep other people's morals for them; and the perception of the sort of fanaticism that would actually condone murder is the greatest "turn-off" possible to imagine, so far as reaching the uncommitted. Put another way: The fact that one deplores slavery could not justify what the Abolitionists did in Kansas, nor tried at Harper's Ferry. John Brown was most deservedly hanged. Let us not condemn the cause of the unborn American to "moldering" in the grave with his despicable carcass.

The Right Way To Fight Abortion

As with most subjects, the right way to present the Conservative position on abortion, is with a candid discussion of what the subject is really about, and why our position makes sense; why it is important to the listener and his family. That starts with simple truths; truths very basic to human life, itself, and hence easily within the mental grasp of every adult with normal intelligence. Consider a list of incontrovertible facts, before we address areas of genuine controversy:

1. Every human life goes through an essential period of development within its mother's womb.

2. No man can reproduce without a woman carrying their baby within her, until such time as that baby can survive outside.

3. No woman has ever had a baby, where all relevant decisions as to that baby were hers alone. (In all human history, no baby has ever just depended on a "woman's right to choose.")

4. The most dramatic or extreme changes in a baby's form and development take place almost immediately after conception. By the end of the second month of gestation, that baby is clearly, in form, a very small human.

5. While in the medical community, an unborn baby may be referred to as a fetus; from eight weeks until delivery, the significance of that term relates more to place than condition. (A typical baby, carried to full term, has all the normal attributes, which would enable it to survive outside the mother, long before actual delivery. Whatever the legal significance that some Courts and/or Legislative bodies may have imposed on the moment of delivery, the most significant biological distinction between the born and the soon to be born, is simply place, not nature of the being.)

6. The unique personality of a typical baby has already asserted itself, in readily perceivable action within the womb, months before delivery.

7. While the method changes with delivery, a baby is just as dependent upon its mother--or some substitute's--nurturing after birth as it was before. (More volition, choice and conscious effort are called for after, than before, birth.)

There are two other philosophic concepts, which most normal people will accept as self-evident, in the context of the foregoing, if they are merely well explained:

8. The traditional societal dating of the living from birth was never intended to trivialize the baby during gestation. It is better understood in terms of (a) the uncertainty of the date of actual conception and (b) the biological bond between mother and child.

9. Permitting women to abort their babies at whim does not enhance the role or significance of women, or of the individual woman. It trivializes and demeans it.

The above nine statements can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of most people of normal intelligence. With them, an overwhelming case can be made against the Court decreed right of a woman to abortion on demand; one acceptable to the vast majority of those with even average intelligence and any modicum of moral values. The key is to keep focused on the reality of the subject within the relevant context of that reality throughout the human experience. The trap is in getting bogged down in a silly battle over semantics. Here, as on almost every issue, the strength of the Left lies in confusing thought patterns in often moronic word games, that prevent one from developing a clear image of the actual issue, in an actual context. (That is when they are not simply trying to shout slogans to drown out any response at all.)

It really does not matter if they call that baby a fetus before it is born, and you call it a baby. It is the same little, admittedly very dependent, human, the day before as it is the day after its birth. Yes, its lungs will be slightly more developed and will be actively engaged. That hardly has anything rational to do with the question of whether it may be legally killed on demand. Nor can any rational person suggest that it should lose anything by reason of its place. There can be no more fitting or proper place for the unborn baby than its mother's womb. And if a Court cannot grasp that truth, we need to work on making it so clear and compelling, that no one dare ignore it. Reality is reality. Keep focused on what is most obvious and most significant.

What possible justification can one offer for a woman having a right to choose death for her baby, via a partial birth abortion, an hour before that choice would, in fact, be "murder" in every jurisdiction of America? Would there be a materially greater justification, rationally or morally, a week before that birth--or a month or two? [One can grant that there may be other factors that could logically be considered, early in the first trimester of pregnancy. While the moral issue may be basically the same, there are, in fact, other possible issues there; and the Conservative debating against abortion--whether he be an anti-abortion purist or not--needs to understand such issues. We will return to them, shortly.]

It is always important, in addressing any political subject, to have an idea of the varying levels of support that may be possible for one's position. It is almost always wise to begin a presentation--or at least to move as soon as practicable without undermining the rest of one's argument--by stressing those aspects where one can expect the widest level of support; to seek a consensus on what points one may, before proceeding from there, to try to broaden the appeal for those aspects, where one may expect a less favorable reaction.

It is important to emphasize late term abortion issues first, not only because the Conservative position there has the more general potential support; but also because, in obtaining that support, one establishes certain essential precepts vital to the wider issue, while undermining the assumptions of the pro-abortionist.

First, you reestablish the concept of a protectable personality in the unborn. Secondly, you lay the foundation for a recognition that the same primal maternal duty, which pertains to the new born, pertains equally to the unborn. These precepts completely undermine the pro-abortionist denial of the moral and biological issues that pertain to all aspects of abortion.

The next strategic issue goes to the assault on family values, implicit in the Feminist War On Love & Reason (Chapter Eight), and reflected in the emotional rant of the pro-abortionist. In denying both the baby and its father's rights in the slogan "a woman's right to choose," the pro-abortionist seeks denial of the most basic reality of a functional humanity. In this she defies both reason and instinct.

While 20th Century cultural nihilists (from Lenin and the initial anti-family bias in the Bolshevik Revolution, through President Clinton's cynical declarations of "Gay & Lesbian Pride" months in end of Century America) have continuously sought to undermine traditional society, there is abundant evidence of the ongoing strength of human romantic strivings (probably instinct based). It is true that some of this can be explained by the purely physical aspects of human sexuality; but certainly not the whole picture. The romantic ethic has never been about instant gratification.

Even Hollywood, cynical bastion of leftwing values, moral corruption and self-indulgence, understands the inner longing for romantic love and the traditional family. Through all the propaganda for manipulated social change, the one successful constant is the formula Hollywood ending, where the well developed and appealing male figure walks off into the sunset--or whatever--with the well developed and appealing female figure; leaving the audience happy in the assumption that they are mated for life.

Few things are more incongruous to the concept of romantic love than the totally self-centered idea that a woman, on a whim, can kill the product of love--i.e., the next generation--in the name of something so idiotic as "a woman's right to choose." Mankind is not unique in the underlying principle. The mating quest in every sexual species, involves a giving up of a certain degree of independence. Among the sexual species, as opposed to the asexual, once we choose to exercise our procreational faculties, our futures cease to be wholly under our own control. The idea of a woman casually killing her and her man's baby, is offensive to anyone who will simply stop and consider the interactive dynamics involved in the whole procreational process.

Certainly, it should not require very great skill for the Conservative debater to at least persuade most of the men in an audience, that the abortionists seek to deny what is perhaps the most important right that they can have. The abortionist certainly steps on the most basic right of the unborn.

We realize that this step by step approach, to rally support to restrict abortion, will not satisfy those who want to scream that "abortion is murder," despite the obvious point, already made, that "murder" is a purely legal concept. But those who have let themselves become obsessed with the immorality of abortion need to step aside, in the interest of their very obsession--the moral values of which we agree with in almost every particular--and let those who understand the art of persuasion carry the public relations battle forward. It is by a step by step approach--and only by such step by step approach--that enough of the public can be made to understand the compelling moral argument, to make an ultimate difference.

Once there is a consensus on the late term abortion issue, and a consensus that a woman's reproductive facilities cease to be hers alone--once she chooses to mate and engage in activity that will produce new life--we will be 90% of the way to persuading most reasoning people that abortion, as a concept, is immoral--absent something very compelling indeed. In the course of a debate, or in a broader political campaign, this general reality is best introduced in the same way.

Thus after developing the logical absurdity of the late term abortion in a society that still clearly seeks to protect the new born, and the inherent conflict between "abortion by whim," and the whole concept of the family; the debater needs to expand on the foundation that he has built. If it is wrong to kill a baby 7 months into gestation, is it right to kill a baby 4 months into gestation? If it is an outrage against the family for the wife to unilaterally terminate her pregnancy, is it not also a denial of the sanctified nature of marriage for a couple to agree to terminate an otherwise healthy baby, simply because they are too selfish to care for it? The one argument goes to the immorality of abortion in general; the other to the trivializing of family life in a joint decision. Using the second argument, also, does not undermine the efficacy of the first. It simply adds another dimension, in order to broaden the constituency against the social malady, you attack.

Again, in each case, the argument should be kept simple, factual and to the point. The strength is in the clarity of the image, not the fervor of the "painter." In "singing for the choir," in this essay, we have used adjectives we would leave out of any public debate.

While a law against abortion would and should pertain also to the situation of the unwed mother, it will always be one of the weaker aspects of the anti-abortion argument. While allowing the killing of her baby may not be acceptable, any show of insensitivity to the consequences of an illicit pregnancy for a basically decent girl, who has made a mistake, can only hurt the cause for restoring a ban. So too, a cavalier attitude towards the couple who seek to abort a seriously damaged baby. We do not suggest that anyone abandon their own moral code; only that they understand where the sympathies of others will begin to tilt against them. This is essential to being effective. And if in that sensitivity, we end in having to accept a policy that allows some abortions, under some circumstances, very early in a pregnancy; surely that is infinitely better than the present mass slaughter of the innocent, in an orgy of self-centered human selfishness.

Forming Strategic Alliances

It may seem tangential, on our part, to broaden the treatment of this issue to include the political as well as the rhetorical. But anyone who has gotten this far in this Handbook, knows that the debate to which we are dedicated is not limited to Oxonian structures. Although it may be a mistake to confuse the argument on one subject with another--as in our own example of confusing abortion with issues involving the sick and elderly--it is never a mistake to look for alliances that may advance one's goal. As observed, some of the groups that focus primarily on Abortion have not always recognized their natural allies. To understand that problem, you need to recognize how we got into the present mess--and who can and cannot be persuaded to do something about it.

Some of those "one issue" foes of Abortion have made the mistake of seizing upon the idea that they actually represent a minority--the unborn baby. In such frame of reference, they seek identification with actions of the so-called "Civil Rights" movement; hoping to obtain public sympathy, leading to a successful outcome. What they fail to realize is that the "Civil Rights" movement--however pitched--was never primarily about fair treatment. It was about Governmental intrusion into Societal structures, in order to level the results of human interaction. It was far more about social engineering than fairness. And the people who were caught up in it--those just as focused in their cause as the anti-abortion enthusiast in his--had a very definite agenda. That agenda was not traditional morality.

Basically, the motivation for all movements that seek to force an equality, which exists no where in nature, is to deny a reality they do not like. The person, who finds the idea of aborting the most basic of life's processes as unacceptable, is coming from a very different direction. He has no underlying affinity for the social engineers. Indeed, it is their secular humanism that creates the very ideological climate, which makes killing the unborn appear acceptable. Thus, those active in the movement against abortion did not understand the ideological landscape, when they sought identification with elements very unlikely to return the favor.

To make the point yet clearer, consider the fact that one of the forbidden human preferences, under the "Civil Rights" enactments, was religious preference. The egalitarian social engineers wanted to make certain that no religious person could favor another religious person in employment, housing or public accommodation. Without going into questions of the reasonable or outrageous character of such legislation, or how it relates to First Amendment guarantees of a free exercise of religion, there is obviously no compatibility between that movement and the largely religious constituency that fights abortion.

Those, who seek to divorce the anti-abortion forces from the complex of other Conservatives, in such a misunderstanding of broader ideological issues, have set back the cause both of the unborn and of a traditional America, which always recognized the sanctity of such life. Many of the most serious inroads that the Left made during the Twentieth Century, came (as with legalized abortion) in ground breaking decisions of an activist Supreme Court, based upon a very loose interpretation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. In failing to appreciate the common interest, which all Americans opposed to one or more of these judicial inroads had in common, we have missed opportunities to achieve a remedy, easily within reach.

It is truly a case of the old adage about "hanging together" to prevail, or hanging apart. The key to reversing Roe vs. Wade was, and is, the same as that to reverse the Federal intrusion into local Law Enforcement, Federal interference in Legislative Apportionment, in Voter Residency, in pupil School Assignments, in State Sedition prosecutions, in prohibiting School Prayer or posting the Ten Commandments--or in the outrageous Girard Trust decision, where the Federal Court prevented the continued application of the Grantor's intended private trust to aid White orphans, because of the racial criteria. (The Girard principle, in treating a private testamentary trust provision as State action because--as in every such trust--the State Court had to appoint trustees, took us within a hairbreadth of the ultimate Communist goal, the abolition of private inheritance rights.)

There are two applicable Constitutional provisions under the control of Congress, which could have been invoked at any time interested Conservative groups had learned to work together more effectively in the face of a many faceted onslaught. Those Fourteenth Amendment cases did not originate in the Supreme Court. They came in under that Court's Appellate jurisdiction. Most arose in Federal District Courts, created not by the Constitution, but by Congress under Article III, Section 1. Congress also established their jurisdiction. Others arose in State Courts. But all were appealed to the Supreme Court under Appellate jurisdiction defined by Congress under Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution.

The second key is in the Fourteenth Amendment itself. While there is a considerable debate among Constitutional authorities as to whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment was even validly ratified, it is not necessary to go to that foundational issue, here. Section 5 of the Amendment states clearly that The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. A simple act of Congress could have abrogated the tortured Supreme Court rulings on Abortion, Apportionment, School Prayer and Pupil Assignment, State Sedition Laws, local Law Enforcement and ethnic and religious Trusts for Orphans, simply by taking those cases out of the Federal Courts. There were blocks in Congress that would have gladly responded to each of those issues. The tragedy is that they did not work more effectively together.

We do not mean to imply that the lack of cooperation between diverse Conservative interests, impacted by the activist Court, primarily reflects a too narrow focus on the part of Conservatives. The major problem results from the distorted coverage that the mass media have afforded each of the involved issues--coverage that in every case has attributed demeaning motivation to the Conservative position: whether irrational fear, fanaticism, bigotry or moral corruption (or, in some cases, all of the above). In such climate, a unified Conservative effort becomes a very difficult goal.

To relate this problem specifically to the fight against abortion, the simple reality is that many who are willing and eager to stand up for Conservative values against abortion, have accepted some of the media smears of Conservatives on other issues. They may actually believe that local Police units are comprised of basically corrupt bullies, who need Federal restraints; that only "bigots" would oppose forced racial integration of schools; that prosecutions of Communists for sedition were part of a "witch-hunt"; that it was immoral for States to apportion their Legislatures so as to check the power of increasingly urbanized majorities; that allowing States to enforce private trusts that benefit orphans of a particular race or faith, somehow takes something away from other races or faiths.

Any one who has gotten thus far in this Handbook, should know that the Conservative position on each of those issues is readily defensible; indeed, properly explained, almost irrefutable. Our problem is that we have not been effective in countering the media induced ignorance among our natural allies in the broader battle--our constituent activists in each cause, compartmentalized by the propaganda mills on the Left. Once we overcome that hurdle, we will not have to worry about "hanging apart." If anyone gets hanged, it will not be those who defend a common heritage.

William Flax

Obama did not just happen! For over two generations, mainstream Americans have been bombarded with a three pronged challenge to the continuity of their values, culture & identity. These have included the absurd, yet oft repeated lie, of an equality of human potential; a direct attack on the ethnic pride & identity of mainstream Americans as unique peoples--coupled with the pretense that they are somehow guilty of causing most of the earth's problems;--and the promotion of a Utilitarian view, which imagines that despite a written Constitution--precisely intended to prevent such misuse of power--the Government has whatever power a majority desire, to address any & all problems of unhappy individuals.

Return Of The Gods explores the impact of this ideological assault on Americans of many types, interests & perspectives, while demonstrating the macro political, social & economic effects that were to lead to the 2008 economic & political disaster. Will Welfare State premises bring yet more social & political chaos, followed by violence & revolution? Consider>>

Return Of The Gods

Conservative Debate Handbook--Instant Access, All Chapters

Conservative Intelligence Center

April, 2013>>
Implied Powers? Clearly Implied Limitations!

March, 2013>>
Compounding Disintegration

Debt Default In America

Egalitarian Collectivism Sabotages Human Potential

Pursuit Of "Diversity," A Return To Babel?

Gold & Money In America

Freedom Of Choice? Gulliver Discovers America [What Mankind should have learned with Eve, but didn't!]

Libya, America & The Law Of Nations

A Better Way To Avoid Economic Crises!

Social Security? Threats To Social Security Continued

Social Security? The Enemy Of Social Security!

Perception Of Reality--Or Lack Of It

Do Those Who Call It, "A Woman's Right To Chose," Suffer From A Perceptual Deficit?

American Essentials

Cloud Dancing--Social Medium For Scoundrels, Neurotics & Dolts

Answer To "Cloud Dancing">>
Return To Ground--America, Built On Experience & Reason

Keynesian Harvest, 2008 & Beyond

Gaming The Question--Staple of Demagogues

Social Reform: Confusion Or "Unintended Consequences?"

Terry Schiavo: An End To Rational Analysis?

George Washington Debates George W. Bush on American Foreign Policy

Feminist War on Love & Reason

How The Welfare State Works!

Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide

Civil War, Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America Today