Economic High Treason, Striking Back at Abortionists. The Obama Administration has insanely badly mishandled the auto-industry's crisis. The idea that the United States Government would actually force a U.S. corporation to sell out to foreigners is incomprehensible, and would have been unbelievable in any prior age. It appears that the Obama Administration is fully as globalist as the Bush Administration ever was.
+
And then Obama forced both Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy, destroying the jobs of tens of thousands of workers and dealers. How do you aid the revival of a badly damaged economy by throwing tens of thousands of people out of work?
+
None of this was necessary. There was a perfectly obvious model for an altogether different approach: the salvation of motorcycle manufacturer Harley-Davidson.

In the early eighties, Harley-Davidson claimed that Japanese manufacturers were importing motorcycles into the US in such volume as to harm or threaten to harm domestic producers. After an investigation by the US International Trade Commission, President Reagan imposed in 1983 a 45% tariff on imported bikes and bikes over 700 cc engine capacity.

Wouldn't a 45% tariff against foreign cars for five years, or an outrite temporary ban on sales in the United States of vehicles made by foreign-owned manufacturers, have saved not just the corporations but also the jobs of American workers? During those five years, the Governmentally saved corporations could have been REQUIRED to create motor vehicles of high fuel economy and reliability, so that even once the ban on foreign cars were lifted, they could compete very effectively. That would have been a far better solution. But it apparently didn't even occur to anyone in the Obama Administration. Nor have I seen any such suggestion in the media. All these media, and not one differing thought!
+
Slautering the Slauterers. Turnabout is fair play, we sometimes say. On May 31st, we had the next best thing. Unborn babies can't strike back against those who would kill them, but adults of profound conscience can, and a very few do. Good. On May 31st, one of the most brazen slauterers of babies was shot dead. He should have been killed in the same manner as he killed thousands, including in "late term" abortions, which were supposedly outlawed by the same Supreme Court that created the nonexistent right to murder your own child. He should have been stopped and executed by the Government. But the Government will not do its duty to protect the unborn, so private citizens have to risk their own lives to try to defend the defenseless.
+
Commentary all over the media decries the killing of babykillers, with ridiculous language like "terrorist" and "the extreme violence of the anti-abortion movement"! Ha! MILLIONS of babies are slautered in this country, but that is not "extreme violence". That's not "terrorism". That's not "murder". Appalling.
+
This country just can't ever be consistent about anything. This Nation has gone bonkers with alarm about child abductions and strangers molesting, not even killing, children. But when the mother authorizes the murder of her child, that's supposed to be OK. No, it's not. Every mother who, with no danger to her life, orders the murder of her child should be treated exactly as anyone else would who murders that child: executed.
+
Abortion is our Auschwitz, the mechanistic mass murder of the defenseless. But the morally blind among us are indignant not at the guards at the barbed wire, nor the people carrying out industrial murder, but at the people who would shoot those guards and gas-chamber workers. Because heterosexuals hate children more than they love them. Kids are inconvenient, expensive, irritating, annoying. From the day they are born to the day they move out of the house — and maybe even move back when they lose a job — they are a burden and nuisance to parents, and not every adult is willing to put up with such impositions. But they don't take sufficient precautions to prevent unwanted children from being born to them, and they don't put their unwanted "accidents" up for adoption. No, they just claim the nonexistent "right" to kill "unwanted" children. How about unwanted adults? unwanted old people? unwanted politicians and pundits?
+
Society is supposed to pretend there is no legitimate social interest in protecting children from murder by their parents. Oddly, parents lose that "right" the instant the child starts breathing on its own — a mother or father who strangles a child 30 seconds after its birth would be arrested and sent to prison. And nobody else has that "right" at any time whatsoever.
+
Morality doesn't have escape clauses. Morality is hard, a harsh, blind master that accepts no excuses. Morality demands that you do the right thing, no matter how inconvenient it may be. Perpetually immature Americans don't want that kind of master. They want to control their own behavior, without any unwanted complications or intrusions by that unwanted voice of decency, that quiet voice they don't want to hear at all. That's tuf. You kill your own child, you die, and everyone you employ to kill that child dies too. Once we have killed off the medical hitmen and their henchwomen involved in the abortion industry — these "people" don't do this out of the "goodness of their heart", you know, but for cold, hard CASH — there will be PLENTY of room on this planet for innocent children.
+
Liberals are hugely confused on this issue, pretending that 'poor, innocent women' who don't want the child they conceived have to be saved from their 'mistake', and there is no moral issue whatsoever because an embryo is just, as some people have said, a "bit of goo". Never mind that every single one of us was once such a "bit of goo". Never mind that between the unborn child and the mother who wants to kill it, the underdog is the CHILD, not the mother. The "little guy" whom Government is morally bound, according to Liberals on EVERY OTHER ISSUE, to protect, is the CHILD. Siding with the powerful mother against the defenseless child is exactly comparable to siding with billionaires and multinational corporations against the poor.
+
So bizarre has this become, that Keith Olbermann, whom you might think a supremely decent person, actually echoed the ridiculous and outrageous reference to the man who executed the brazen abortionist as a "terrorist". Not "vigilante", which many Americans recognize as being at times a term of honor. "Terrorist." The vigilante-executioner is a HERO, as much as would have been someone who shot a Gestapo agent whom he managed to catch off-duty, exiting a torture chamber where he had just been "interrogating" a member of the French Resistance.
+
Perhaps we need to reconceive and rebrand the anti-abortion movement as the American Resistance, and adopt a baby in a beret as its logo.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,308 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 6:32 PM