Tomi Lahren, the blonde talk show host loved by the American conservative movement, said recently that if “conservatives” want to win the majority of America, they need to keep the murder of unborn children- abortion- legal:
Conservative Fox News commentator Tomi Lahren has again spoken out against efforts to overturn the legalization of abortion in America, admitting that she is going against many of her fellow supporters of President Donald Trump.
Lahren, speaking out in light of conservative hopes that Trump will nominate a Supreme Court justice in favor of overturning the 1973 ruling on Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion to replace the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, said that such a fight would be a “big mistake.”
“Yes, the new high court vacancy is a huge opportunity for conservative values and principles, I get it. And I understand the passion behind the pro-life movement,” Lahren said in her “Final Thoughts” segment on Friday on Fox News Insider.
“But to use conservatives’ new-found power and pull to challenge a decision that — according to a new Quinnipiac poll — most Americans support, would be a mistake,” she added.
Last week’s Quinnipiac poll in question, based on 1,020 responses, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points, found that American voters agree 63-to-31 percent with the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
Lahren argued that there would be major legal obstacles to overturning Roe v. Wade, insisting that the fight is not worth having.
“Do we really want to fight for this, alienate Democrats, moderates, and libertarians, all to lose in the end anyway? That’s a risk I don’t think is worth taking,” she continued.
“I’m saying this as someone who would personally choose life, but also feels it’s not the government’s place to dictate. This isn’t a black and white issue and I would never judge anyone in that position.
“I believe the way to encourage someone to choose life is to treat her with compassion, understanding and love, not government regulation.”
Kristan Hawkins, who leads Students for Life of America, pushed back against Lahren’s warning.
“Hmm… didn’t the government involve itself with abortion when 7 men invalidated dozens of state laws with Roe and Doe? Also, I’m sick of hearing the same old from Washington elites about how social issues aren’t winning issues,” Hawkins wrote on Facebook on Sunday.
“Just look at the exit polling data from 2016. Grassroots folks don’t go knock on thousands of doors in the heat for less regulation. They knock on doors to protect life.”
Last year, Lahren was suspended by and eventually left The Blaze, a conservative outlet founded by Glenn Beck, after she voiced a pro-choice position.
“I’m someone that is for limited government, so I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government, but I think that the government should decide what women do with their bodies,” Lahren said in an appearance on “The View” in March 2017.
She added, “Stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well.”
Beck, who is a Mormon, said in response that America’s Constitution “clearly states to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Well, who are our posterity, if not our unborn children and grandchildren and great grandchildren.”
“Our descendants and future generation, that’s who the Constitution is securing the blessings of liberty for. Not just us,” he said then.
Lahren clarified later that though she holds a pro-choice position, she does not advocate for abortion.
According to The Daily Beast, Lahren is set to have a cameo appearance in the upcoming “Roe v. Wade” pro-life film.
Crew members allegedly said that Lahren is set to portray Supreme Court Justice Blackmun’s daughter, Sally — a Planned Parenthood volunteer who challenged her father on abortion.
Sources also told The Daily Beast that Christian actors Stephen Baldwin and Kevin Sorbo dropped out of the project after they received the script, deeming the movie to be too extreme, but Sorbo has described that as “fake news.”
“Ah, fake news. Gotta love the Left,” Sorbo wrote on Twitter on Friday with a link to the article.
“This is a great script showing how much the lawyers did to get Roe v Wade passed through our Supreme [Court],” he noted. (source)
It is not possible to say that one holds a pro-abortion position but does not support it. If she did not support it she would not say that she is pro-abortion. It is a failed attempt to avoid saying that she believes in murdering children while saying that she does.
For years, people on “the right” have claimed that “the left” are a party who supports many atrocious and disgusting things, one of which is abortion. There is nothing good that can be said about abortion because the science- something “the left” so openly loves to associated itself with- says that a child is a child from the moment of conception and abortion is just legalized murder because people believe it is socially acceptable.
There is not philosophical consistency to this in itself. There is no reason which can be systematized into a greater role in social philosophy. It is legal because the government says its legal, reason and science be throw into the trash, because it is the expression of the deeply established social narrative in the USA that says some lives are worth more than others and, once the lives that are deemed of greater value and of lesser value are established, one may terminate certain of the “less valuable” lives as one desires without social consequences. Remember, that the USA was the nation whose eugenics programs were studied by Germany in preparation for her own programs during the Second World War.
Where are the “conservative” voices denouncing her?
Why has she not been pushed out of the movement completely? She is already a known supporter of Planned Parenthood, the largest pro-eugenics organization in the USA and likely her entire history.
It is because, philosophically speaking, there is no difference between the positions of the right and those of the left with the exception of the wrapping which they put on themselves in order to market themselves to the public.
The “left” appeals to people who feel marginalized, “outside” of society (even while they are completely in it), are very wealthy, consider themselves “international-oriented,” or just want free stuff on somebody else’s dollar.
The “right” appeals to “patriots,” nationalism, and the “Blut und Boden” types who “fight for America,” as well as those who do not want an “extreme” approach to many fiscal or social issues.
In so far as the philosophy of how the parties are defined on an epistomological level- what is the meaning of politics, what is the role of government in the society, what is the meaning of right and wrong and how does a government translate this into policy- the Republicans and the Democrats are no different except in the intensity and speed of their willingness to advance the same ends. The “left” wants to move fast and hard, the right prefers slower and less hard, but not with any less potency. The “left” takes a “rougher” approach to realizing these ends, the right takes a “softer” approach, but again, the strength of conviction in both is present.
Americanism, the philosophy underlying both, is based on the will of the masses as it translates to getting power. The American political machine, being created by the philosophy of the “Founding Fathers” and not by historical relations, is itself devoid of unchangeable realities from which it cannot divorce itself. In Europe, for example, Germany and Poland are historical rivals, with Poland usually being the one mistreated and Germany the aggressor. Their relationship with each other cannot change because the two are stuck together, and while Germany embraced heresy and apostasy and Poland did not, their unchangeable proximity to each other defines their relationship with each other no matter how good or bad relations at any given time could be.
America, owing to the fact that it was created on a neo-liberal philosophy that, while given a coat of Christian paint, is itself the largest product produced by the anticlerical, humanistic paganism of 18th century Europe. America may have a “constitution,” but that “constitution” is but a reflection of the character of the people of the society at that time.
It can change.
It has changed.
It can be abolished.
Contrary to the Mormon mythology of the Constitution as a holy document given by their god, the Constitution is, like the Bill of Rights, a human document whose philosophy was the beginnings of the bad seed that would bear the fruits seen today in the discussions over what values one must accept to be an American.
In many of the nations that were once upon a time or still under, albeit to a greatly reduced extent, the influence of the Church, that history cannot be separated from them no matter what one does. The Church, being the holder of the deposit of Faith given by Christ and entrusted to her, is in spite of the sins of her members and leaders at times a physical, tangible reminder of absolute truth and for these same governments what their roots are from whence they came, for while all of the peoples of Europe were once pagan, it was the missionaries who went out and taught, with much difficulty and sometimes blood, the truth about God and how He meant for them to live. They taught the Germanic peoples to stop making animal sounds under the moonlight of midsummer’s eve, the Latin peoples to abandon their revelries and murder for entertainment, the Irish out of the human sacrifice of the Druids, and the Slavs to freedom from their spiritual and physical slavery.
No amount of hatred of this past can change it. The French Revolution, which so ardently hated the Church and destroyed Churches, monasteries, places of pilgrimage, religious symbols, and even went to establish a separate religion as the new religion of the state failed because the history could not be effaced. The Protestant menaces of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Cromwell violently suppressed and eradicated the Faith to a great extent from their lands, but still could not abolish their history, as the Protestant historian William Cobbett noted in his History of The Reformation in England and Ireland.
The hatred of the Church and Christianity in Europe today is palpable, for most people do not practice religion, and the few that do too often commit the error of the Reformation, which is to see religion as an extension of patriotism.
This current “refugee crisis” in Europe- which has been proven with clear evidence to be a coordinated plot between the German and American governments working with many nations in Western Europe and major corporations- objectively threatens the histories and peoples of Europe. Even if millions were to be blamed for what is the top-down coordinated implosion of Europe in order to stir up nationalism to translate it into militarism to drive the machines of yet another major war and said millions of people were rounded up and exterminated in the name of nationalism- which is entirely possible- one does not simply get rid of millions of people with ease.
Could it be that these people are being brought in knowing this but also, so that by their difference in culture and religion and even physical appearance, their presence might attempt to efface what little remains of Christianity in Europe in terms of history because the hatred of the Church is so great?
There is yet to be a clear answer to this question. But one must not rule it out, for if a series of nations and their rulers are prepared to go to war with each other and slaughter millions as they did in the last century in less than a 30 years difference between World War I and World War II, if a war could last for 30 years and claim millions of lives as it once did on the continent, if the same land that was once the center of Christianity has now rejected the very Faith which brought it into existence and chooses to persist in apostasy based on manufactured ideas about a past and refuses to consider that such views might be errors, then it is certainly possible.
America’s case is not as clear, for in America, the nation itself is a manufactured construct based on the set of arbitrary values after it divorced itself from the British Empire. America retains certain aspects of this culture still, such as the Anglo-Saxon and Protestant undertones of the society, but as a whole because the society was always separate from absolute moral truth, as Protestantism is a rebellion against the Church, the society is forever susceptable to yet more rebellions coming not from without, but from within as to its philosophy.
What is an American? That is defined by the ethos of the age. There were periods when the nation was “more Christian” and “less Christian,” but it never was a Christian nation. It was always based on the idea of the triumph of the will in regards to the sentiments of the general population. If the population is moral in its character on a personal level, then the society will be better. However, this comes from an acceptance of absolute truth as an individual, not as a corporate body in a society and therefore has no corporate social value unless enshrined into law.
Essentially, people can be good, but the laws of the society don’t reflect an absolute morality. They reflect the desire of the masses, which can be shaped but until a firm shape is impressed by the rule of a law just as a cookie cutter sets a shape from a blob of dough, the society still can be reshaped.
There has been a centuries long-struggle over this process in the USA as to what will win, and the winner is clearly secularism because in order to bring about absolute moral truth as a guiding principle, it would necessarily need to permanently alter to the point of abolishing large parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This does not mean that evil will be stopped, but rather that it will be clearly defined in a legal sense, which gives a social framework for stopping it definitively if one so chooses to on a governmental level.
But that is not going to happen. Freedom is truly the freedom to choose what is right, and without absolute truth there is not freedom, but libertinism, which leads to immorality and chaos.
There should be no sense of surprise at Ms. Lahren’s comments about abortion or the refusal of the “conservative” movement to reject her like a tumor, or at the fact that the conservative establishment has, especially among the younger generations, embraced homosexuality and opposed those who stand against homosexuality. The movement always had the potential to take a formal position in this direction. Formal, because while people can informally or illegally espouse a position against the principles that one claims to adhere to, that is not the case here, as the definition of truth is defined by the masses whose inclinations are coddled and nourished by those in power to ensure a longer tenure in office and more salary. Since politicians barely work and their job is state-subsidized, they are essentially fighting to get paid for doing little to nothing at all.
It does not matter if the country burns down, if the nation becomes a fetid trash heap, or if the people are destroying each other because truth does not matter here. Only the force of will to indulge the desires of the masses is what matters, and which is exemplified no clearer than how Ms. Lahren, the flaxed-haired fantasy of the “conservative” right, says that because most people like murdering unborn babies and to oppose it will threaten the power of the “conservative” establishment, that it is a sacrifice worth being made.