The Most Basic Anti-Life Strategy: Begging the Questions

Author: A.L.L.


American Life League

The power to define is the most important power we have. He is master who can define.

                                                                                                 Steely Carmichael.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

This country has been bogged down in debating settled moral questions for long enough. All we are doing is wasting time squabbling over the fundamental human rights regarding reproduction, death with dignity, and a person's sexual preferences.

It is high time we moved on to the many urgent and pressing questions that are not settled and that face our society and the world. Anyone who wants to continue talking about settled moral issues is free to do so, but they deserve to be isolated and left behind as the rest of society moves forward.

Using The Most Basic Strategy.

The Assumptions. 

The easiest way to put an opponent at an immediate disadvantage whether it be in a nationwide political campaign or a local debate is to get him to unconsciously accept one or more of your basic assumptions as established or proven fact.

This strategy is commonly known as "begging the question(s)."

All pro-lifers have heard their opponents say something along the lines of "Every thinking person knows that homosexuals are born with their gender preferences," or "There is no longer any serious debate over whether or not there is a Constitutional right to abortion [or right to die]."

This is the Neoliberal's way of simply pretending that opposing views (and those who espouse them) simply do not exist. As far as sodomites, pro-abortionists, and other Neoliberals are concerned, pro-lifers are ciphers non-entities invisible people. Our opinions do not count and therefore are not even mentioned in polite Neoliberal company, except as fodder for ridicule or as a means of identifying oneself as a far-Leftist to others of like mind.

A Neoliberal's false assumptions literally define the framework of his very existence, and include most or all of those listed in this chapter.

Attacking the Assumptions. 

Sometimes it can be quite difficult to recognize when a Neoliberal is begging the question(s), because his false assumption(s) are so wide in scope or so basic to the debate as to be nearly indiscernible.

These assumptions provide the context (logical environment) within which he thinks and debates.

There is a great danger in accepting assumptions without thinking about them. A person who mindlessly adheres to any set of unwarranted or false assumptions eventually begins to lose his ability to reason. To begin with, if the underlying assumptions of a philosophy are faulty, everything built upon these assumptions will be fundamentally flawed as well.

When a pro-lifer effectively debunks a Neoliberal's false assumptions, it causes a profound mental disorientation in the Neolib because the foundation for his arguments has been destroyed. A pro-lifer can cause great discomfort in his opponent by recognizing the fallacious assumptions inherent in the Neoliberal position and exposing them by using the principle of parallelism. This means that the logic inherent in a person's beliefs must be universally applicable to all similar situations in order to be valid.

The principle of parallelism and other effective debating tactics are described in Chapter 29.

It Can Be Tough ... Nobody likes to stand up and speak 'against the flow.' Any pro-lifer who raises any objections to the Neoliberal's 'settled' assumptions is likely to be met with gasps of disbelief and hoots of derision. After all, every "thinking" person has accepted the Neoliberal framework at least, that's what they say.

Pro-lifers must realize that false Neoliberal assumptions are nothing more than the person's internalization and generalization of the slogans described in Chapter 16.

The more general the statement uttered by a Neoliberal, the more likely it is to be based on one or more false underlying assumptions.

A few examples of Neoliberal question-begging are shown in Figure 6-1.


By Abortophiles

Statement. "Abortion funding must be reinstated where it has been eliminated by anti-choice legislators, because such reactionary restrictions hurt poor women the most."

Underlying assumptions.

(1) That abortion is a societal 'good' that benefits the nation.
(2) That abortion is a fundamental Constitutional right and therefore must be 
   financially supported by everyone.

By Euthanasiasts

Statement. "The right to a death with dignity is a fundamental human right that must be guaranteed for everyone."

Underlying assumptions.

(1) That abuses will not take place or will be very rare.
(2) That society has no interest in protecting its citizens.
(3) That euthanasia is a positive social 'good' that essentially affects nobody 
   but the person in question.
(4) That most people experience extreme pain despite medication when they 

By Sodomites

Statement. "Hate crimes laws must be passed in every state and must be vigorously enforced."

Underlying assumptions.

(1) That sodomy and associated sexual perversions constitute a lifestyle that 
   is morally equivalent to normalcy.
(2) That most people agree with the homosexual agenda.

Statement. "Federal and local government funding for AIDS research and education must be tripled in the next five years."

Underlying assumptions.

(1) That AIDS funding is inadequate and much more important than funding 
   for research into other diseases.
(2) That sodomites bear no responsibility for their perverted behaviors.

By Pornographers

Statement. "Any limitation whatever on sexually explicit material is completely unacceptable."

Underlying assumptions.

(1) That any limitation, even on 'snuff films' and 'kiddie porn,' constitutes a 
   direct threat to all forms of expression.
(2) That pornography is fundamentally cathartic and harmless.

Identifying the Assumptions.


Every true Neoliberal operates within a general framework of about twenty assumptions that define how his ideal world would look if he had any say in the matter. These assumptions do not necessarily have anything to do with reality.

This framework is a powerful psychological prop because the Neoliberal can construct a picture of 'reality,' measure it against this network of assumptions, and, if the two do not match, he will either ignore the situation if it does not impinge upon his personal rights or decide to take action if it poses any threat to him.

It should be noted that everyone, regardless of religion or political affiliation, has a framework of assumptions that helps defines his life. These frameworks are valid if they consist of assumptions that are grounded in fact, not dreams or wishes.

The basic Neoliberal assumptions are listed in Figure 6-2. Note that they are separated into two categories.



(1) The concepts of "sin" and "evil" are outmoded.
(2) Moral relativism is the rule.
(3) Since there is no afterlife, the paramount concern is "quality of life."
(4) All 'progress' is good.
(5) Tolerance, compassion, and nonjudgmentalism are the highest personal 
(6) Religion and its associated values have absolutely no place in public 
(7) The only good Christian is a bad Christian.
(8) Diversity is good, no matter how bizarre its form.

ISSUE-SPECIFIC ASSUMPTIONS (Explained in the indicated chapters)

(9) Eurocentrism is bad and multiculturalism is good (Chapter 9, "The Victim 
(10) Abortion is a "fundamental human right" (Chapter 17, "Propaganda").
(11) Animals are morally equivalent to human beings (Chapter 91 of Volume 
   III, "Animal Rights and Environmentalism").
(12) The death penalty can never be justified (Chapter 92 of Volume III, 
   "Capital Punishment").
(13) Communism is just an economic system (Chapters 93 through 96 of 
   Volume III, "Communism").
(14) People have an absolute right to do whatever they want with their own 
   bodies (i.e., assisted suicide) (Chapter 106 of Volume III, "Philosophy and 
   Theology of Euthanasia").
(15) Homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Homosexuals 
   have no control over their behavior because they are "born that way" 
   (Chapters 115, 116, and 117 of Volume III, "Homosexual Orientation, 
   Objectives, and Tactics").
(16) All war is unjust (Chapter 123 of Volume III, "The "Just War" 
(17) The American media is completely fair and impartial (Chapters 124 
   through 127 of Volume III, "Media Biases").
(18) Marriage constitutes slavery for women. Children are a burden to all 
   adults. Women are fundamentally identical (not just equal) to men in every 
   way (Chapters 113 and 129 of Volume III, "The Family" and 
(19) Every individual is a god or goddess (Chapter 130 of Volume III, "The 
   "New Age" Movement").
(20) Overpopulation is society's most serious problem. People are a burden 
   to the planet (Chapter 131 of Volume III, "Overpopulation").
(21) Pornography is perfectly harmless (Chapter 134 of Volume III, "Effects 
   of Pornography").

The first category concerns general metaphysical assumptions that have been debated for decades or even centuries. All of these assumptions are common to all Neoliberal individuals and causes and are discussed in the remainder of this chapter in more detail.

The second category of assumptions is issue-specific, and each is discussed in the chapters indicated in Figure 6-2.

Dealing with the Assumptions. 

The process of successfully dealing with Neoliberal assumptions consists of two separate steps: 

(1) identifying the assumption, and 
(2) clearly and concisely debunking it.

The remainder of this chapter describes this two-step process and how it can effectively be applied to the most popular Neoliberal ethical assumptions.

The Concepts of 'Sin' and 'Evil' Are Outmoded.

The Most Basic Assumption.

The most basic assumption of almost every Neoliberal individual and group is that the concepts of "Satan," "sin," and "evil" are quaint and outmoded.

The first reason that Neoliberals reject these concepts is that they believe that they are positively dangerous, because people who believe in them must necessarily hold the "judgmental" notion that some people are "bad." And the Neoliberals, of course, know instinctively that they are the "bad" people.

There is a second and more personal reason that Neoliberals avoid the concepts of "sin" and "evil." Anyone who accepts that there is "sin" and "evil" recognizes that human nature is capable of them, and therefore the person is inevitably led into occasional self-criticism and self-doubt, which definitely detracts from the individual's quest for earthly perfection. This conflicts with the "New Age" idea that all human beings are 'little gods' striving for divinity on earth.

The ultimate result of the Neoliberal "sin is outmoded" idea, of course, is that God is either dead or irrelevant. After all, if sin simply does not exist, who needs God for salvation?

Refuting the Assumption.

The easiest way to rebut the "no sin or evil" assumption is to name a specific act and then ask the Neoliberal if he considers it to be sinful or evil.

The person will almost certainly reply that certain examples of 'social sins' such as apartheid, racism, sexism, and/or 'homophobia' are inherently evil.

Alternatively, the Neoliberal might assert that certain specific actions performed by individual pro-lifers or groups are evil, i.e., doing rescue missions or petitioning to have "sexual preference" clauses dropped from anti-discrimination statutes.

Of course, this means that if the Neoliberal believes that any particular act is evil, there must be people 'committing' the acts, and these people must therefore be relegated to a 'less good' status than those who do not commit the acts in question. In other words, the Neoliberal actually does believe in the concept of "evil" and is therefore being judgmental and inconsistent with his previous statement(s) disavowing the concept.

If the Neoliberal instead resorts to the moral relativist position that the commission of any act depends upon the specific situation, the pro-lifer may then state that 'homophobia,' sexism, racism, and even rape are sometimes acceptable depending, of course, upon the situation. This tactic will highlight the basic absurdity in the "sin is outmoded" assumption.

The Neoliberal might reply that these acts involve victims which is true, of course, but irrelevant to the argument over whether or not "evil" actually exists.

The basic point that must be made is that everybody thinks that some acts are evil no matter how non-judgmental or tolerant they claim to be. This means that there is no such thing as a pure moral relativist.

In support of this point, the pro-lifer might remark that it would give him great personal fulfillment and joy if the Neoliberal would allow him to kick a few dents in his car (or bicycle) and perhaps scratch up the paint a little. This type of statement very quickly separates the true 'moral relativists' from the bogus ones.

In summary, everyone has a different definition of "sin" and pro- lifers simply refuse to accept the Neoliberal definition. This is what the Neoliberals are really saying with this first and most basic false assumption not that "evil" is outmoded, but that some people think that what they (the Neolibs) are doing is "evil."

In other words, the Neoliberals are implying that they can do no evil. This is evidenced by the fact that many or most Neoliberals will claim with straight faces that "women cannot oppress men," that "Black people are incapable of racism," and that "gays and lesbians are not capable of hate."

Moral Relativism is the Rule.


The second false Neoliberal assumption springs directly from the first.

Since Neoliberals don't believe in sin, they have no need of God (unless the "God" happens to be a tolerant, nonjudgmental "mush god" who would never condemn anyone to Hell).

It follows that they will then reject the Christian value system, which (whether they acknowledge it or not), undergirds and serves as the framework for this country's value system.

Why Turn From God in the First Place?

The fundamental reason that most people turn from God is that they wish to be free of what they perceive to be "oppressive" rules and limits, which they do not realize are necessary for true freedom. Therefore, it naturally follows that they will also reject or bypass those laws set by society that they find to be unduly limiting.

This is the basis of 'situational ethics,' the concept that there are really no limits that cannot be transcended if the individual perceives that they stand in the way of his desired goal(s).

Result: TEGWAR.

Since situational ethics rule the Neoliberal mind, life becomes "The Exciting Game Without Any Rules" (TEGWAR).

To the Neoliberal, anything goes as far as strategy and tactics are concerned, because 'progressive' morality is by definition good. Lies, slander, deception, and even killing are all the Devil's tools, and are easily adapted by Neoliberals to advance their agenda(s). Examples of these unscrupulous tactics abound: The Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork fiascos, the congressional machinations of Henry Waxman and Teddy Kennedy, and the quotes supporting lawbreaking by the directors of the major pro-abortion groups.

Of course, when any conservative or Christian group is accused of violence or unethical behavior (such as bombing abortion mills or televangelists sinning), it is cause for great celebration and finger-pointing by hypocritical Neoliberals. After all, in their view, it is only the Neoliberals who are allowed to stretch the law to the breaking point or to bypass and ignore it altogether.

Refuting the Assumption.

The approach to refuting the assumption that situational ethics is workable is to point out the logical results of such a philosophy, either at the individual or societal level.

Situational ethics can only properly function in a society that consists of beings who have perfect judgment and are therefore capable of doing only the right thing in every possible situation. Such a society, or course, would not need laws or ordinances of any kind.

It would also have no human beings in it.

However, we human beings are definitely fallible. The evidence that we do wrong constantly is always before us, and fills our newspapers and newscasts.

Nobody in his right mind (not even a Neoliberal) will defend the thesis that a person, if left to his own devices, will always do the right thing for society. In fact, people will not always do the right things for themselves if given complete freedom.

However, this does not matter to the Neoliberal. His criterion is not that people will always do the right thing; it is that people must be completely free to do either the right or the wrong thing.

This is essentially a prescription for anarchy. As fallible human beings, we require solid guidelines, whether they be religious or secular, in order to be able to live together. The Neoliberal, however, advocates the idea that all limits and laws can be transcended if the individual judges certain actions necessary.

Where Has Situational Ethics Led Us?

The basic fallacy of situational ethics is painfully ironic.

The very heart of the Humanist's existence is the drive for happiness and pleasure and freedom from responsibility and pain.

The examination of ethics and morality has taught us that, if a philosophy does not fulfill its primary goal, then it is a failure. Honesty compels us to ask ourselves: Has the concept of limited situational ethics really made us more happy? Are we as individuals and as a society freer and happier than we were, say, half a century ago?

Only the most naive and inexperienced optimist would say that we are. Crime of every type from larceny to rape and murder is at an all-time high. The practice of psychiatry is a growth business because people are uncertain of their mental health. Health clubs abound because people are uncertain of their physical health. Millions of children suffer because schools are virtual cesspools and most marriages now end in divorce.

Public opinion polls repeatedly show that people believe that we are much worse off as a society in general than we were just twenty years ago. Even thinking Humanists agree that pure situation ethics will not function in a society that hopes to survive, and that some sort of value system is absolutely essential.

The Brookings Institute is the largest and most prestigious liberal 'think-tank' in America. Recently one of its leading researchers, A. James Reichley, in a 389-page study entitled Religion in American Public Life, concluded that the representative form of government "depends for its health on values that, over the not-so-long run, must come from religion." Through religion, "human rights are rooted in the moral worth with which a loving Creator has endowed each human soul, and social authority is legitimized by making it answerable to a transcendent moral law."

By this criterion, then, Humanism and its entrained concept of situational ethics is a complete and utter failure.

There is No Afterlife, So 'Quality of Life' Now is Paramount.

The Assumption.

The Neoliberal movements are all part of the general push towards Modernism, which holds that man must save himself. As the 1980 Secular Humanist Declaration flatly stated, "Secular humanists reject the idea that God intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few, or that he can save or redeem sinners. We reject the divinity of Jesus."

Imagine for a moment the ways such an attitude could deform a person's ethical structure. There is no afterlife after death, there is no judgment, no Heaven, no Hell, just nothingness. The instant that a person's consciousness winks out for the last time, the individual simply ceases to exist. His body will not rise again; all it is good for is fertilizer.

It is natural to expect that a Modernist, who has no eternal framework, will strive to make his pitiful little collection of years on earth a series of pleasant and exciting experiences. As he grows older, he becomes more and more aware of his limitations and his mortality, and anyone or any rule that interferes with his freedom and his pleasure-seeking must be either removed or avoided.

The logical outgrowth of such an attitude is situational ethics. Since moral relativism or situational ethics is the Neoliberal rule, people can justify even killing if they can rationalize it in terms of environmental good (general "quality of life") or individual (specific) "quality of life."

This all-important "quality of life" is defined as the relative degree of freedom, comfort, and escape from restrictive responsibility that individuals or groups can achieve.

If a person believes that "quality of life" is the highest good, then he will also accept the abortion of 'unwanted children,' because their existence will allegedly cause the parents to have a decreased "quality of life." He will also accept euthanasia, so that unwanted elderly and handicapped persons will not impede his "quality of life." And he will accept homosexuality, because after all, what is "quality of life" but the pursuit of personal happiness with total disregard for 'restrictive' moral standards?

Refuting the Assumption.

The "quality of life" is a powerful lure precisely because it appeals strongly to our fallen human nature. As human beings, we tend to try to escape responsibility and suffering as much as possible and embrace enjoyment and pleasure to the greatest possible degree.

The Neoliberal knows this, and also knows that he has a new ally if he can simply get a person to give in to his ingrained selfish instincts and accept the idea that "quality of life" is paramount.

In order to refute this argument, the pro-lifer must show that the mere pursuit of pleasure is not only selfish but illogical as well, because if enough people focus only on themselves, the inevitable result will be a degree of anarchy that results in a tremendous decline in the degree of "quality of life" for all people.

Our society is an excellent case in point. Fifty years ago, the post-war United States had a relatively strict set of standards that, even though they were not always observed, were at least acknowledged by almost everyone.

Today, by contrast, there are no absolute standards. And we are paying the inevitable price on every front. It is not exaggerating the situation to say that most people have a lesser degree of personal freedom than ever before.

It used to be possible for amoral people to fornicate freely with whomever they pleased; now such activities are tantamount to playing Russian roulette. We used to be able to walk the streets at night, alone, without fear, while leaving our houses unlocked. This would be very foolish in most places today. A million of our citizens now enjoy very little freedom of any kind because they bought into moral relativism and now languish in prison because of it. Our children have fewer career opportunities because they learn so little in school. Employers must grill prospective job applicants on their attitudes before hiring them, because theft and embezzlement are at an all-time high.

"Quality of Life" Then.

Pro-aborts are not really raving demons, although they may appear to be at times. They are perfectly ordinary human beings just like you and me who just happen to have bought into the deadly "quality of life" ethic.

Most of the Nazi killers of the World War II concentration camps were also perfectly ordinary human beings, as described in Christopher Browning's book Ordinary Men (Harper-Collins, 1992). Browning describes the activities of a military reserve unit, the 101st Police Battalion, which was comprised entirely of Bremerhaven steelworkers.

It was the job of these men to "process" new arrivals at the Polish concentration camps, including Auschwitz. When trainloads of Jews and other "undesirables" would arrive at the camps, the steelworkers would first separate small children from their mothers. Then they would slaughter the mothers. And then they killed the little children with clear consciences, since, without mothers, their "quality of life" (Lebensqualitat) would be too low.[2]

And so, the members of this unit which consisted entirely of perfectly ordinary people slaughtered thousands of little two- and three-year old girls and boys, and claimed at the Nuremburg trials that they were merely "participating in acts of mercy."

"Quality of Life" Now.

Today, abortion clinic workers echo the same words used by the Bremerhaven steelworkers as they fruitlessly tried to defend themselves against charges of mass murder and genocide at the Nuremburg trials. Many abortuary staff have candidly admitted that, if it were legal to kill perfectly healthy four- and five-year old boys and girls in clinics, they would gladly help.

A typical interview with an abortuary employee;

Question: "Oh, so as long as you make money, it doesn't matter?"
Clinic Employee: "As long as it's food in my stomach, no, it doesn't matter. It is legal ... It is legal ... It is legal!"
Question: "So if they legalized killing four-year-old children, you would have no problem?"
Clinic Employee: "No, I would not have a problem ... My conscience is very clear ..."[3]

Of course, the slaughter of born human beings is not yet accepted by society to the point where it can be committed in freestanding 'euthanasia mills.' The killing of 'imperfect' newborns that have an excessively low 'quality of life' quotient is carried out today in our spotless and sanitary hospitals, far from public scrutiny and protest.

The mass murder has already begun.

Over a period of three years, a team of four physicians and a social worker at the Oklahoma Children's Memorial Hospital evaluated 69 babies born with myelomeningocele (spina bifida) with a mathematical quality-of-life formula. Of these, 36 were considered worthy of life and were given aggressive treatment, and 33 were pronounced unworthy of further effort and were deemed unfit to live.[4]

All of the little babies in the untreated group died after spending an average of 37 days on this hostile earth. The 'physicians' responsible for this slaughter published their findings to wide applause.[5]

According to knowledgeable physicians and researchers, anywhere from 2,000 to 10,000 infanticides are committed in our country each year.

It is natural that anti-lifers should prey upon the young and helpless in the name of their own 'quality of life,' and it is equally inevitable that they should follow this by killing the adult helpless.

Their names are legion: Nancy Cruzan, Karen Ann Quinlan, Joseph Saikewicz, Joseph Fox, Clarence Herbert, Claire Conroy, Helen Corbett, Paul Brophy, Elizabeth Bouvia, Hector Rodas, Nancy Ellen Jobes, Marcia Gray, Ione Bayer, Mary O'Connor, Carrie Coons, and more than two thousand others every year. In the vast majority of cases, it is not the helpless person who requests death; it is those who are sick and tired of caring for them, those whose 'quality of life' is being hampered by having to deal with their drooling grandma, those who want to divert their energies to 'more productive' (for them) activities.

Isn't is funny how it is always someone else who must die for the anti-lifer's "quality of life?"


We have truly become a nation without honor, because many of our citizens value their own 'quality of life' even over the right of the so-called 'inconvenient' to live.

And the paradox continues. The more individual freedom we demand and receive, the less freedom we actually have.

The only answer to this vicious circle is a return to more self-discipline, which is anathema to the entitlement- and comfort-addicted Neoliberal mentality. As described in Chapter 7, "Gradualism," it is infinitely easier for society to loosen up its moral standards than it is to develop some backbone and do what is necessary for its own survival by 'tightening up.'

All 'Progress' is Good.

'Progress' = The Ultimate Goal.

In the mad Neoliberal rush to achieve the greatest possible degree of personal freedom, 'progress' becomes an end unto itself. Iconoclasm and nihilism are the highest goods, and change any change is the goal, no matter what the result.

The Neoliberal does not enter manhood by proving that he has the self-discipline or talent to adhere to society's standards he achieves acceptance among his disaffected peers by flaunting his lack of these qualities in the most offensive way possible, and then demanding that society support him.

And society 'enables' him by being stupid enough to comply with his demands.

It is now axiomatic in the anti-life movements that all (forward) change is good; all resistance to such change is, by definition, "reactionary."

To the Neoliberal, to change something is to reform it and improve it. Therefore, redefining marriage to include homosexuals and unlimited promiscuity is a reform; to oppose or to attempt to change the definition back is evil. To abolish all restrictions whatever on the printed word, to include children having sex with animals, is "progressive;" to oppose this is "wrong thinking" and "censorship." Unlimited free abortion is a 'good;' to advocate even the most justifiable limits on it, such as a ban on third-trimester abortions, or decent burial for the babies, is "backward" and "misogynist."

The American people demonstrated that they have bought into this philosophy to the point that 'change' is more important to them than morality when, in November of 1992, they elected a pot-smoking, draft-dodging adulterer with a social agenda that would make Hitler green with envy to the Presidency of the United States.

Refuting the Assumption.

The easiest way to demonstrate the inherently illogical nature of the "change = good" assumption is by showing that all progress is not necessarily 'good.'

Since Neoliberals define 'progress' simply as any change in status from one point in time to the next, all a pro-life debater needs to do is describe the evolution of any obviously destructive social movement.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazis certainly thought that they were achieving 'progress' by exterminating the crippled, the Gypsies, and the Jews, whom they termed "infestations." American slavers certainly thought that they were progressing as they forced an entire race to do the menial chores they abhorred so that they would be free to pursue higher goals. Pol Pot announced a great program for social progress as he exterminated nearly one-sixth of Cambodia's population. And abortophiles trumpet their 'progress' in "women's rights" at the expense of the blood of thirty million preborn children.

The key to dissecting and debunking this assumption is to show that one man's progress is another man's death or slavery. Everyone has his own idea of what progress really is. If this 'progress' requires the destruction of other people, it is not really progress at all just genocide.

The only real progress is achieved when everyone advances together! We cannot call anything "progress" if we choose to leave anyone behind, for whatever reason.

This is why women as a class will never truly achieve what they call 'equal rights' and freedom from 'patriarchal oppression' as long as people see that they are oppressing another class of people the preborn. No class of people can ever be free of oppression unless they themselves decide never again to oppress. Otherwise, their hypocrisy will always bring them down.

Tolerance, Nonjudgmentalism, and CompassionAre the Highest Goods.

The Assumption.

Neoliberal churches and the media constantly exhort us to take definite action against diffuse "social sins" like hunger, racism, sexism, and "homophobia."

However, when we attempt to examine the sins that individuals commonly commit, we are immediately told that we must "mind our own business" and "not get involved." Tolerance, compassion, and nonjudgmentalism suddenly become the only truly 'good' intrinsic personality traits.

It is kind of odd, isn't it, that people are allowed to get away with abortion, fornication, adultery, divorce, suicide, sodomy, and a host of other sins that the Neoliberals believe are ethics-neutral but when individuals engage in racism, sexism, or homophobia (even in their thoughts), suddenly personal behavior becomes a matter for legal action and legislation?

This is entirely logical and consistent to the Neoliberal, because the 'goods' of tolerance and nonjudgmentalism are powerful tools that are allowed to operate only when they benefit Neoliberal causes. In other words, it is the Neoliberal movements that have defined what is individual 'good' and 'bad' in our country. Anyone who opposes the Modernist/Neoliberal agenda is therefore by definition 'intolerant' and 'judgmental,' and anyone who supports it is by definition 'tolerant' and 'nonjudgmental.'

Refuting the Assumption.

The assumption that tolerance and nonjudgmentalism are the best intrinsic personality traits is relatively easy to refute. All a pro-lifer has to do is make his opponent appear hypocritical and inconsistent by demonstrating a few of the many ways in which Neoliberals are pervasively judgmental and intolerant.

The best way for a pro-lifer to do this is to point out that Neoliberals say that they believe that everyone should be treated with equal dignity, regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Then the pro-lifer may describe a few of the best-known examples of how Neoliberal bigots have violated their own rule.

Slides or overhead transparencies that describe the following events or display the following quotes have the most visual impact, but, if such are not available, a lurid and graphic description or a simple reading of the quote will usually suffice.

Examples of Neoliberal Misandry.

Introduction. Due to the persistent shrill whining of the Neofeminists, almost everyone knows that 'misogyny' means the hatred of women.

But very few people are familiar with the parallel term 'misandry' the hatred of men despite the fact that may embittered and angry women engage in it.

The Feminazis Speak. 

For example, in response to an interview question, lesbian playwright Carolyn Gage snarled that "I hate men. That's like asking if I hate Nazism and like individual Nazis. If you hate Nazism, you hate all Nazis. So I hate all men ... Men are different from women; they have this testosterone problem. They're a different species ..."[6]

SCUMmy Females. 

One extreme pack of early-1970s misandrists labeled themselves SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men), and published a dead-serious "Manifesto" that alleged, among other things;

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.

It is now technically possible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene state ...

The male ... has made of the world a sh_tpile. He is responsible for war, prostitution, mental illness, fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, prevention of privacy, conformity, religion, prejudice, secrecy, censorship, suppression of knowledge and ideas, distrust, ugliness, hate and violence, disease and death [many more listed].

A small handful of SCUM can take over the country within a year by systematically f_cking up the system, selectively destroying property, and murder.

SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves ...

[After the SCUM revolution], the few remaining men can exist out their puny days dropped out on drugs or strutting around in drag or passively watching the high-powered female in action, fulfilling themselves as spectators, vicarious livers or breeding in the cow pasture with the toadies, or they can go off to the nearest friendly neighborhood suicide center where they will be quietly, quickly, and painlessly gassed to death.[7]

Ever since the "SCUM manifesto" was publicized, Neofeminists have alleged that it was just a "little joke." Try to imagine what would happen if a group of men suggested that women be "gassed to death" even in jest!

Other Neofeminists have written in their books and journals that "All men are rapists. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes" (Marilyn French). "Men are locked in the conquistador mind, the rapist mentality" (Sonja Johnson). "Men's affairs, from what I can tell, are dominated by aggression and alcohol" (Barbara Tuchman).[8]

Misandry in the 'Mainstream.' Misandry is even pervasive in the "mainstream" world. A television advertisement for StayPut Shoulder Pads coyly suggests that "They're like a good man: A little bold, a little square, around when you need them ... They never lose their shape. Which is more than you can say for most men."[9] No Neofeminist breathed a word when Joan Rivers blurted, "Women are so superior!" or when Margaret Thatcher made her memorable little statement that "In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman." Many professional men have been irritated by the popular office poster that claims "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult." Try to imagine what would happen to the poor office drone who reversed the genders in this poster!

Examples of Neoliberal Anti-Religious Bigotry.


While they trumpet tolerance for all, the Neoliberals viciously attack the single institution that has had the courage to stand up to their destructive goals; the remaining conservative Christian churches.

It is safe to say that Neoliberals are not only atheistic; they are positively anti-theistic.

Abortophile Anti-Religionism. 

Most veteran pro-life picketers have seen the cruel and hateful anti-Christian signs waved about by counterpickets and escorts from American Atheists and other anti-theist groups. These signs often carry hideous slogans such as:


During a June 1988 taping of the Morton Downey Show, abortionist Bill Baird snarled that "My goal is to see the end of religion in this country." Baird, on CBS's "Nightwatch," also demanded that Catholic bishops be declared "agents of a foreign power" so that their private papers and finances could be thrown open to public inspection.[10]

Atheist agitator and speaker Gina Allen snarled her hate of Christianity as she claimed that;

I always steal a Bible out of a hotel. It makes the Gideons very happy. You know, they look and they have to replace a Bible and they say, 'We've got another convert.' Actually, I take them out of hotels because I wouldn't want a child to get hold of this pornographic book. Pornography is a symptom of a sick society a society based on this book. Stories in the Bible are forerunners of the famous Hustler cover that shows a woman being put through a meat grinder. This is what we learn from this book that tells us how to rape, how to stone women and children, how to burn women as witches, and so on ... The Lord God invented women as a gadget a useful gadget for men's pleasure and use. You take this gadget and you screw it on the bed and it does the housework.[11]

I have a very special feminist dream. That dream is that this model feminist ordinance should pass all over the nation. And that every woman who had ever been raped and every woman who has ever been battered and every girl-child who has ever been molested will sue under this ordinance the Gideons who distribute this pornographic book, everybody who publishes it, and everybody who preaches from it.[12]

Assault on a Cathedral. 

Sodomites and pro-abortionists belonging to the groups ACT-UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) and WHAM (Women's Health Action Mobilization) stormed New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989, assaulting parishioners, disrupting Cardinal John O'Connor's Mass by screaming and shoving people, and desecrating the consecrated Host by throwing It on the ground and stamping on It. Outside, hundreds of screaming sodomites burned Cardinal O'Connor in effigy and attacked passersby, all because the Cardinal had refused to toe their immoral "safe sex" line.[13]

The placards they carried displayed slogans such as;


It is obvious to even the most casual observer that these posters are not meant to merely protest; their messages directly attacked Christianity and were meant to ridicule the most cherished beliefs of Catholics.

In December of 1990, in defiance of a court order resulting from the attack one year earlier, sodomites broke into the Mass once again and made off with several consecrated Hosts, which they gleefully displayed and abused outside.[14]

Examples of Neoliberal Heterophobia.


As with the term "misogyny," sodomites have trumpeted the word "homophobia" for so long that everyone is familiar with it.

But what about the sodomite's "heterophobia," which is at its most virulent when spewed against opponents? Chapter 118 of Volume III, "Homosexual Tactics," describes some vivid examples of heterophobia. Some of the more extreme manifestations of this psychological disease are shown below.

Sodomite Vows of Violence. Michelangelo Signorile, editor-at-large of the sodomite magazine Outweek, showed his hate of presidential contender Pat Buchanan when he wrote that 

It's hard to refrain from taking this man by the throat and squeezing as hard as you can while you look into his ugly, disgusting face and watch the eyeballs burst and pop out of their sockets. Or maybe you feel like stepping on his face and squishing his demented brain until the rot oozes out of it and onto the pavement. I have no problem with imagining violence against this wacko ...[15]

Sodomite 'artist' David Wojnarowicz wrote in a tax-funded National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) catalog that "At least in my ungoverned imagination I can f_ck somebody without a rubber or I can, in the privacy of my own skull, douse [Senator] Helms with a bucket of gasoline and set his putrid a__ on fire or throw [Congressman] William Dannemeyer off the Empire State Building ... [Cardinal John O'Connor] is the world's most active liar about condoms and safer-sex ... This fat cannibal from that house of walking swastikas up on Fifth Avenue should lose his church tax-exempt status and pay retroactive taxes from the last couple centuries."[16]

Examples of Neoliberal Racism.


Neoliberals consider themselves to be their most sensitive when on the lookout for incidents of alleged 'racism.' It is interesting to watch the reaction of an audience when a pro-life debater simply substitutes the word "Black" for the word "White" when discussing some of the more blatantly racist statements made by Neoliberals.

The Barry and Carmichael Show. 

For example, the former Mayor of Washington, DC, Marion Barry, has called abortion clinic bombings "terrorist acts," and has compared the bombers to Adolf Hitler. This is curious in light of the fact that Barry, in the mid-1960s, headed the Washington, DC Chapter of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), whose national chairman was Steely Carmichael.

Carmichael said that "[Martin Luther] King's death made it a lot easier for a lot of Negroes they know it's time to get guns now."[17] After King was shot, 595 arson fires were set in urban areas, and Carmichael said "That was light stuff compared with what is about to happen."[17]

Barry never denounced Carmichael or this violence, of course, because it was a Neoliberal, politically correct issue, which is always somehow "different" (just ask him). Therefore, Barry is saying that 595 arson fires, many randomly set, and many of which resulted in deaths or injuries, are justified. Imagine what would happen if some White person, in response to the killing of a White, alleged that it would be alright to "get guns now" and set fires in Black neighborhoods!

Racist Textbooks. 

The University of Texas (Austin) requires only one course in English composition, freshman-level English 306. The class textbook, Paula S. Rothenberg's Racism and Sexism: An Integrated Study, is composed entirely of left-wing essays denouncing the incurably corrupt American "system" and bemoaning the fate of various self-appointed victim groups.

Among other "wisdom," the Racism and Sexism text states that, while all Whites are by definition racist in their thoughts and actions, minorities "may discriminate against white people or even hate them" but are not capable of racism!

This kind of nonsense, not surprisingly, has infected influential Blacks who are always eager to grab headlines. Gus Savage, a Chicago Democrat, went so far as to say that "only whites can be racists."[18] This was the same Gus Savage who screamed at a reporter from the Washington Times "I don't talk to you White motherf_ckers. You b_tch motherf_ckers in the press ... F_ck you, you motherf_cking a__holes!"[19]

Lest anyone take offense at such incandescent profanity, remember that Neoliberals claim that this is not a racist statement.

Now imagine what would have happened if David Duke had shouted that same statement at a Black reporter!

Other Silliness. 

Susan Sontag has written that "The white race is the cancer of history." Black Muslim Elijah Muhammad revealed with a flourish and trumpets that Whites are devils invented by a mad scientist named Yakub.[20]

Anyone (i.e., American Nazis) who utters such silliness directed against Blacks is instantly attacked by the formidable media machine and the full weight of the court system.

Hammering Home the Point.

If the Neoliberal debating opponent or members of the audience still do not get the point that the pro-lifer is trying to make, he may try substituting the words or images of Black people or Jews in the above examples and inquire as to whether or not this would make them racist or sexist statements.

A group of male sodomites from San Francisco dress up like Catholic nuns and call themselves the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" as they mock the Catholic faith and make fun of the Mass. Ask if a bunch of sodomites masquerading as rabbis or Jewish concentration camp survivors would be allowable.

'Artist' Andres Sorrano makes his living by doing things like dipping crucifixes and pictures of the Pope into bottles of his own urine. Ask if a menorah, a volume of the Torah, or a photograph of Martin Luther King dipped in urine would be racist or anti-Semitic in nature.

And, as mentioned above, groups like the Society for Cutting Up Men (SCUM), despite their protestations that they were 'just joking,' have suggested exterminating all men. Would the Neoliberals tolerate a group of men jokingly suggesting that all women should be exterminated?

Religion Has No Place in the Schools.


Neoliberals insist that Christianity has absolutely no place in public education, because it teaches that there are some things that are right and wrong. This allegedly leads to intolerance and judgmentally. The only rule that may be taught in the public schools, they say, is that everyone must be allowed to judge for themselves what is right and what is wrong. This is the familiar moral relativism, or 'situational ethics.'

The Neoliberals have acknowledged that the most certain way to control society is to make sure that a Godless attitude is inculcated in our children in the schools. Therefore, every trace of the Christian value system must be eradicated.

Even though school Bible Clubs have been declared constitutional by the United States Supreme Court under the Equal Access Act, Neoliberals are still trying to keep them out. This exclusion of Christianity has gone so far that teachers are not allowed to mention the word "Christmas" in December; the proper term is "winter holiday." Although school calendars feature the dates for Hanukkah and arcane African religious festivals, the words "Christmas" and "Easter" are strictly banned.

For more information on the Neoliberal strategy of controlling the schools, see Chapter 12.

Refuting the Assumption.

All a pro-lifer need do in order to refute the "no religion in the schools" assumption is to draw a contrast between the schools in 1940 (when prayer was mandatory and ethics were taught as a class subject) and now.

A half-century ago, children went to school not only to learn academic subjects, but to learn how to construct a moral framework within which to live. To this latter end, they were taught religious principles grounded in the Ten Commandments.

Today, of course, not only have the schools jettisoned all religious principles, they have eliminated all moral principles period. Our kids are taught that the only smart thing to do in this dog-eat-dog world is to Watch Out For Number One.

And then the Neolibs scratch their heads in all innocence and wonder why things have gotten so bad.

In 1940, the main problems in the public schools were truancy, tardiness, smoking in the restrooms, dress code violations, talking in class, chewing gum, making noise, running in the halls, getting out of turn, and littering.

Today's teachers, who often face armed assault and rape by their students, long for the time when these were the worst problems they had to deal with. Today's major student problems are teenage pregnancy, drug addiction, alcoholism, concealed weapons, assault on teachers, teenage suicide, rape, robbery, arson, vandalism, extortion, and a host of venereal diseases.[21]

When examining the deterioration of our schools, Neoliberals will not even entertain the thought that moral principles should be re-established. In fact, they ridicule those who hold such a view. The Neoliberal solution is simply to pour more and more money into the schools: Higher salaries, more staff, more counselors, more 'services,' more expensive equipment, more lavish buildings.

But this largesse does little good. As Chapter 114 in Volume III ("Homeschooling") describes, many studies have shown that our children, although per capita expenditures in our schools are among the highest in the world, perform near the bottom of the world's academic ladder.

And so, many of our children unless they are cared for by their parents or possess an innate will of steel are conditioned to be soft, ignorant, entitlement-addicted, demanding little brats who are so consumed with 'self' that they literally are incapable of seeing beyond their own tiny sphere of influence.

They loudly demand their privileges and rights while steadfastly refusing to make any contribution in return. They mindlessly fornicate and abort and literally go crazy with anger and indignation if any voice is raised in protest.

They lie. They cheat. They steal. They loot. And when they're caught, they blame their mothers. Their fathers. Reagan. "Right-wing fanatics." Anyone but themselves.

And when, after years of complaining, laziness, and agitation, they find themselves outside the very "system" they so loudly reject, they pout, weave ineffectual little plots, and squat among their many possessions while commiserating about how "oppressed" they are.

Each one of them is an ignorant, slow-witted, soft monument to squandered human potential, potential that could have measurably improved the very social conditions they protest so vigorously and so uselessly.

If this scenario doesn't frighten you, consider that these are our future police, our future judges, our future doctors, our future leaders!

Neoliberals, of course, call this "progress in the schools."

There Are No 'Good Christians.'

On Stereotyping.

Neoliberals like to say that they hate stereotypes, but they freely and enthusiastically stereotype those who do not agree with them. In fact, a quick comparison of a collection of any Neoliberal and conservative publications will show that the former stereotype the latter in picture and print approximately twenty times more frequently that the latter stereotype the former.

In particular, Neoliberals assume that all conservative Christians are intolerant or judgmental, and that all liberal 'Christians' (from denominations like the United Church of Christ and the Metropolitan Community Church) are loving, accepting, and tolerant.

In other words, the only good Christian is a bad Christian. In the specific case of Catholics, "all roads lead from Rome."

Debunking the Assumption.

At Least We're Trying ... One approach to debunking the "no good Christians" assumption is to show that the essence and theory of Christianity is an ideal to be emulated, but that Christians are realistic enough to recognize that all people are fallen creatures and cannot possibly achieve the ideal, although some saintly people come close. We are all sinners, and the important thing is that true Christians are trying to attain the ideal.

It is easy for Neoliberals to sneer at the failures of Christians and condemn them because Christian actions do not always match their ideals.

It is inevitable that all Christians will repeatedly fail to meet the standards set by Christ, at least in some areas. This is what happens when people engage in the noble pursuit of trying to improve themselves by reaching for a standard of perfection.

But, contrary to what the Neoliberals say, a failure to reach the goal one sets for oneself is not hypocrisy; it is simply failure. If a person is really trying, he will go back and attempt to reach his goal again and again. This is one of the noblest of human pursuits.

On the other hand, self-satisfied Neoliberals have no standards to adhere to. They are not trying to improve themselves (except in a materialistic way). Therefore, they are insulated from failure by their very timidity and selfishness.

Christian Duty. 

Another very important point to make is that true Christians simply cannot stand on the sidelines and watch others march serenely down the highway to Hell. This is not love; it is utter indifference to the plight of others. We, as followers of Christ, must warn those in sin of the horrors that await them. This duty is unpleasant and difficult, but it is true love.

By comparison, Neoliberals have no ethical system to live up to, because they are moral relativists. They do not believe in Hell, and so they are indifferent to what goes on around them, just so long as they are not discomfited or inconvenienced.

This is not love; it is madness!

Diversity is By Definition Good.


Most people who live in cities with large sodomite populations have seen "HONOR DIVERSITY" bumperstickers on battered cars and vans, along with others proclaiming various Neoliberal sentiments: "DREAM BACK THE BISON, SING BACK THE SWAN;" "WOMEN TAKE BACK THE NIGHT;" and "PRAYERFULLY PRO-CHOICE," among others.

The "honor diversity" assumption is nothing more or less than a simple slogan. It is short, it sounds catchy, and it allows a person to proclaim to the world that he adheres to a philosophy that he may not even have examined closely enough to defend.

The idea behind the "diversity = good" assumption is that 'humankind' must have a wide variety of people intermixing if it is to survive. This is a takeoff from the entirely valid biological principle that nature requires indeed generates diversity to ensure the survival of life on this planet.

Refuting the Assumption.

However, it is certainly not valid to extract a broad biological principle in its entirely and apply it indiscriminately to a societal system. When speaking of 'diversity,' it is useful to remember that the principle itself is entirely neutral, but the Neoliberals are trying to transform it into a positive good that is only 'good' when exercised by Neoliberals.

Pursuing diversity for its own sake can be foolish indeed. For example, there is a diversity of opinion among men on what the status of women is in our society. Some men (pimps and pornographers) believe that women are 'products' or valuable 'commodities' that can be exploited to make them rich.

Of course, there is still a diversity of opinion among a few people as to whether Jews and Blacks are even human beings. And a diverse group of people believe that it is all right to execute killers and eat and experiment upon animals.

Would the Neoliberals have us believe that these expressions of 'diversity' are 'good?'

Of course not!

We are once again left with the inevitable conclusion that 'diversity,' just like 'choice,' 'tolerance,' and 'progress,' are merely artificial constructs (smoke screens) created to cover up Neoliberal skulduggery and blunders. After all, if we were to extrapolate this Neoliberal position and 'honor' diversity to a great enough degree, literally any perversion would be above criticism.

'Diversity,' 'choice,' 'tolerance,' and 'progress' all have positive connotations, and Neoliberals use them all unilaterally.

In other words, it is only the Neoliberal expression of 'diversity' that is acceptable. It is only the Neoliberal expression of 'progress' that is valid. And it is only the Neoliberal expression of 'tolerance' that carries any weight among 'enlightened' people.

Using examples like those illustrated above, it is relatively easy for a pro-lifer to illustrate the hypocrisy of this position in a debate.

References: Begging the Questions.

[1] William Lambdin. The Doublespeak Dictionary. Los Angeles: Pinnacle Books, 1979.

[2] Christopher Browning. Ordinary Men. Harper-Collins Publishing, 1992. Reviewed in the April 12, 1992 New York Times Book Review by psychiatrist Walter Reich.

[3] "Abortion Clinic Staff Worker Gives Her Excuses." Life Advocate (publication of Advocates for Life Ministries, Portland, Oregon), April 1992, page 21.

[4] Debra Braun. "Oklahoma Hospital Allegedly Withholds Life-Saving Treatment from Handicapped Babies." National Right to Life News, May 16, 1985, page 1.

[5] Richard H. Gross, M.D., Alan Cox, M.D., Ruth Tatyrek, MSW, Michael Pollay, M.D., and William A. Barnes, M.D. "Early Management and Decision Making for the Treatment of Myelomeningocele." Pediatrics (Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics), October 1983.

[6] Cate Garrison. "Theater of Exclusion." Willamette Week [Portland, Oregon], September 12-18, 1991, pages 15 and 16.

[7] Valerie Solanis. "Excerpts from the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto." Sisterhood is Powerful (Robin Morgan, editor). New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Pages 514 to 519.

[8] Robin Morgan, ed. Sisterhood is Powerful. New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Page 543.

[9] Jim Atkinson. "Roseanne Bites Man." National Review, September 3, 1990, page 38.

[10] Joseph Sobran's Washington Watch. "Abortion Lingo." The Wanderer, August 3, 1989. Page 5.

[11] "Humanists Say Bible is Pornographic." National Federation for Decency Journal, September 1985. Page 12.

[12] Gina Allen, quoted by Sun Belt syndicated columnist Charley Reese. "Humanists Show Their Fanaticism." Midland Reporter-Telegram, July 15, 1985.

[13] E. Michael Jones. "The Pope and the Condom Worshippers." Fidelity Magazine, October 1987, pages 32-44. Also see Just Out Magazine, January 1990, page 10.

[14] John Leo. "The Gay Tide of Catholic-Bashing." U.S. News and World Report, April 1, 1991, page 15. Also reprinted in the April 14, 1991 issue of Our Sunday Visitor, page 19.

[15] Michelangelo Signorile, editor-at-large of the sodomite magazine Outweek, quoted in National Review, June 24, 1991.

[16] AIDS-infected sodomite David Wojnarowicz, writing in an NEA-funded art catalog and quoted by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. "Congress Continues Funding Pornographic, Anti-Christian 'Art' With Tax Dollars." American Family Association Journal, January 1990, page 20. Also see "NEA Continues Funding Anti-Christian Art, Pornography With Tax Dollars." American Family Association Journal, May 1990, pages 1 and 13. Also see "Radical New York Homosexual Artist-Activist Sues AFA, Wildmon for $5,000,000." American Family Association Journal, July 1990, pages 1 and 22.

[17] Steely Carmichael, quoted in "Mayor Barry and the Bombings." Cal Thomas and Wayne Stayskal. Liberals for Lunch. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1986. Pages 61 and 62.

[18] "Short Endings." Fidelity Magazine, June 1990, page 22.

[19] "Dubious Achievement Awards of 1991!" Esquire Magazine, January 1992, pages 94 to 119.

[20] David Horowitz. "The Radical Left and the New Racism." New Dimensions Magazine, December 1990, pages 20 to 37.

[21] Suzanne M. Rini. "Disorder and Early Sorrow: Sex Education as Moral Seduction." Fidelity Magazine, April 1989, page 38. Also see David Brooks. "Forget the Fire Just Keep Teaching!" National Review, December 13, 1985, pages 24 to 29.

© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111

This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia, published by American Life League