Right Wing Trash

Right Wing Trash
Vol: 139 Issue: 29 Monday, April 29, 2013

Last week, I got an email from an OL member of almost two years’ standing requesting his membership be canceled and that we stop sending him our ‘right-wing’ trash. I’m not sure which hurt more; the ‘right-wing’ comment or the ‘trash’ comment.

The ‘trash’ comment was reflective of my writing, I thought (at first) whilst the ‘right-wing’ comment was reflective of my correspondent’s worldview. But then I thought about it some more, and both comments were a reflection on my writing.

My apologies.

If I was doing my job correctly, then he should have just called it ‘trash’ because he would have already learned that the right wing is no different than the left wing — both are propaganda.

I’ve done a lot of soul-searching regarding this issue, since I admit in advance that I’ve no sympathy for anything emanating from the Left. But not having sympathy for the Left does not automatically translate into sympathy for the Right.

Or does it? No. It can’t. The Left spins off in one direction, and the Right spins off in another. If there is a Left and a Right, then there must be a center point where each side began before the spin cycle is engaged.

Believe it or not, it is that center point that I am shooting for. If it sounds like I am defending the Right, it is only because the Left is so wrong.

America is divided into three parts; about a third of the country are Democrats. Another third are Republicans. The rest are somewhere in the middle.

I don’t believe it is a ‘right-wing’ position to oppose abortion — it is clearly center of the road for anybody who isn’t an idiot. Abortion is the taking of a human life. Oh, one can argue whether or not a fetus is a person until they are blue in the face — it is an argument without substance.

Unless a fetus in the womb of a human female can mature into something OTHER than a human, then it is a human fetus. If a fetus can be said to exist, then it is a human being.

Whether or not it can exist outside the womb is irrelevant, since eventually, it WILL be able to exist outside the womb, but ONLY as a human being.

The rest is semantics. An unborn baby is neither Republican nor Democrat, neither Right nor Left. It knows no politics.

If there is a difference, it is this. Those on the Right have thought it through and see no space between killing an unborn baby and killing a born baby. Those on the Left are so caught up in the semantics that they don’t see a baby — they see an agenda.

Those in the middle, those who say they have no opinion, well, they haven’t thought about it at all. Or they don’t want to admit it and get pigeon-holed as ‘right-wing’.

Because if they have thought through the abortion question, that is most likely the camp they will find themselves accused of being part of.


I’ve never been able to understand how anybody, regardless of their politics, could actively promote abortion. I can get my head around the concept that there are people who are born without a sense of natural affection — psychiatry calls that ‘sociopathy’ — but I have trouble getting a grip on those who advocate in favor of it.

Like Barack Obama. Guys like Barack Obama astonish me. Here’s a guy with two little girls of his own — they seem like perfect little girls. Then, of course, there is his own history. Here’s a guy that, had Roe v. Wade been the law of the land in 1960, would probably have ended up as medical waste at an abortion clinic.

Obama’s life is a horror story for pro-abortion forces, which is why they avoid discussing it at all costs. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Stanley Ann Dunham had actually wanted the baby born to her at age eighteen.

According to her Wikipedia entry, her teachers, Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman; “taught the importance of challenging societal norms and questioning authority. Dunham took the lessons to heart; “She felt she didn’t need to date or marry or have children.” A classmate remembers her as “intellectually way more mature than we were and a little bit ahead of her time, in an off-center way.”

One high school friend described her: “If you were concerned about something going wrong in the world, Stanley would know about it first. We were liberals before we knew what liberals were.” Another called her “the original feminist.”

So, Obama’s mama was a Sixties liberal feminist. She was also, according to her best friend in high school, a committed and dedicated atheist. Barack Obama confirmed that assessment when he wrote in “Dreams From My Father” that she was a “lonely witness for secular humanism”.

Later, in “Audacity of Hope” he wrote: (who writes TWO autobiographies before their 40th birthday)?

“I was not raised in a religious household… My mother’s own experiences… only reinforced this inherited skepticism. Her memories of the Christians who populated her youth were not fond ones.”

If profiling a person has even a modicum of validity, then the profile of Barack Obama’s mama says that Obama only survived because Roe v. Wade had not yet been adjudicated.

Had Stanley Ann Dunham become pregnant out of wedlock in 1972, it is more than probable that Barack Hussein Obama may never have made it out of the womb in one piece. He was darned lucky that he had grandparents who were willing to raise him when he became inconvenient to her subsequent marriage to Lolo Soetoro.

It is not ‘right-wing’ to oppose abortion. At worst, it is middle of the road — the most recent Gallup Poll shows that 51% of the country now considers itself pro-life. (Watch for a concerted push by the White House over the next few months to try and influence and change that demographic.)

There is a left wing and a right wing in America — both are wings off the center of the American body politic. It isn’t those that oppose abortion that are the extremists — it is those who support and defend a woman’s right to choose to kill her baby that qualify for the ‘extremist’ title.

Unless one is prepared to argue one could take a more extreme position on birth control than killing the baby – a tough position to sell as being ‘centrist’.

The simple fact is that a ‘woman’s right to choose’ had already been exercised — that’s how she got pregnant. The Left argues a woman should have a second chance to choose and that consequences to the victim of that second choice are somehow irrelevant.

Does that sound centrist to you?

Yet this past weekend, the airwaves were filled to overflowing with people arguing back and forth about whether or not Notre Dame Catholic University should convey an honorary degree in law to a politician whose pro-abortion record is one of the most extreme in the nation.

If there is a center of the road argument that is different from that of the right wing, I’d love to hear it. Just because one doesn’t agree with the Left doesn’t automatically make someone a member of the Right.

The truth is ALWAYS somewhere in the middle.

Note:  Obama’s recent speech to Planned Parenthood brought this brief to mind this morning. Its original publication was May 18, 2009. 

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s