Truth.

Swiss MP on Islam

Don't worry, it isn't faith, frawley. Faith presupposes an absence of physical evidence. I owe my ongoing firearms ownership to the effectiveness of this strategy.

Why is it even moderate Republicans, entirely opportunist politicians, still grudgingly support the NRA's policies? Surely not out of any patriotic love for the Second Amendment, that's for sure. :D They do so because they've learned the penalties of doing otherwise. Pro-gun people are notoriously single-issue voters, they have long memories and deep pockets. It's the proverbial stick vs. the carrot. As Frank Langella famously said in the Ninth Gate, "There's nothing more reliable than a man whose loyalty can be bought for hard cash."

The bitter irony is there are more pro-lifers out there than pro-gunners. So why haven't we seen similar gains as the nation-wide concealed carry movement? Because pro-lifers are endlessly fragmented on religion and ideology. Our pro-abortion opposition is not. Pro-lifers quibble over spritual doctrine, a Lutheran doesn't want to work with a "Papist". Both look at the Episcopalians as suspect. We bicker over whether some abortions should be allowed under this circumstance or that one. As always the "moderates" (the worst traitors in any movement) seek "compromises" with our enemies.

All the while the pro-abortion crowd plays one group against the other, fragmenting the opposition while remaining one unified bloc: abortion for everyone, on demand, and covered by the tax-payer's earnings. It's taken a long time for the pro-gun crowd to learn from the divide and conquer tactics that saw the "assault weapons ban" passed in 1994. "All we want is to stop drug-dealers owning AK-47s and Uzis". The "moderates" -mostly hunters- swallowed that bait in one gulp. Sure.. let 'em have those dumb ole' Rambo guns. Doesn't bother me. I can still go huntin' with mah nephew this fall. Who cares? America's self-described "sportsman" community selfishly believed they could appease the anti-gun activists by "giving" them the firearms rights belonging to other gun-owners.

In the years that followed, they soon learned (much to their distress) that "giving" your enemies someone else's freedom only emboldens them to demand yours as well, further restricting those "heirloom guns" the hunting community so cherishes. With one victory in hand, the left soon rebranded Grampa's cherished deer rifle into the same deadly scoped "sniper weapon" that blased JFK's brains out the back of his skull. Uncle Vern's fancy double-barrelled 12-gauge "goose gun" was a sinister sawed-off weapon that left no ballistics or cartridges for law-enforcement to trace. It was then (and only then) the "hunting community" panicked and begged for help from those of us they'd previously betrayed. America would be a very different place if gun-owners had stood shoulder to shoulder over a quarter of a century ago.. If it sounds like I'm just a tad bitter and resentful towards those clods, yeah, I am.

Here's a more striking example. While I never tire of pointing out Matty's endless anti-Semitic stupidities, there is no denying the Jewish community is an extremely powerful political group. Why should less than 2% of the population have such a disproportionate say in American politics? Simple. They bought and paid for it. They donate heavily to Pro-Israel lobbies who in turn donate to pro-Israel politicians. That means huge contributions for candidates during their campaigns. When elected, politicians favour those who paid for the campaign. Simple as that.

By contrast 43% of the US voting population identifies as "pro-life". So what are we doing wrong? The problems aren't that difficult to identify, are they? ;-)

Ultraviolet You have a lot more faith in politicians than I do. Forty years of supporting and donating to"prolife" candidates and not a whole lot of progress even when the republicans controlled the house, senate and the white house. If we saw someone murdering a two year old in an office building would we worry about trespassing or being disruptive? At least they are doing something. Most of our religious leaders will not even mention it in a sermon for fear of offending someone in the pews.

Entering a facility to disrupt its functioning and "dissuade people" falls under trespassing and disorderly conduct -especially when they refuse to leave. The same is true if an atheist or a Muslim tried to enter a Church during Mass to dissuade people against worshipping God. This is why the "ushers" aka "porters" once had (and in some places still do have) a very real security function.

There are vastly more effective ways of disrupting abortion providers. All of them are legal and normally involve political (read: financial) support for sympathetic pro-life candidates during the election process. These priests could do devastating damage against abortion if they put their status as men of God behind concentrated fund-raising for pro-life political groups.