How does one square pro-life and anti-welfare?

Abortion is not an answer to poverty.

This is part 6 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


6. How do conservatives square a pro-life abortion policy with persistent attacks against the welfare state?

I have a hard time squaring the idea that these two things are related in conversation. Apparently, liberals feel that it’s justifiable to kill a human being that may be born into a welfare system. Is being dead better than being poor? Is that what you think about poor people? They would have been better off had they been aborted by their mother? Seriously, has no person ever escaped the welfare system? This isn’t a caste society. The two are unrelated, and it sickens me to hear this argument.

Killing an unborn, defenseless human being is wrong; regardless of the reason. The only permissible time is when the mother’s life, not her mind, is in danger, for example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

The welfare system is wrong and abortion are wrong. Using one wrong to justify another wrong is evil.

New SCIENCE on when life begins: Science, Embryonic Autonomy, and the Question of When Life Begins | Public Discourse

Why do so many people say Trump isn’t racist?

Why do so many people say Trump isn't racist?

This is part 4 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for Townhall.com: here, and here.


4. Why do so many people say Trump isn’t racist? Or say they voted for him despite that and feel ok with it?

First, as Hawkins said, I know of nothing that he has said or did that was racist. I know about the Mexican comment he made, but I don’t believe it was racist. It was hyperbole and it was effective at getting people’s attention. In case you haven’t noticed, Trump uses a LOT of hyperbole.

I’ve said this before, although I haven’t written it, but Trump is now taking the brunt of the anti-conservative impact because he’s become the figurehead of “racist” America. If Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz would have been the nominee and won, they would have been racist too. If you pay attention, 49.8% of Americans are racist; that’s everyone that voted for him, including me. But liberals think everything is racist and hateful: wanting a wall, protecting our borders, school choice, voter ID, standing against Affirmative Action, standing for traditional marriage, understanding that psychological disorders aren’t genders… Basically, opposing any idea held by liberals can get a person branded a racist.

If a liberal calls me a racist, based on their twisted definition, it actually makes me feel better about myself. Why? Because it confirms that I’m on the right side of morality. Because in the real, true definition of the word, I am not racist. I believe everyone should be treated the same regardless of their race, and no race is better than any other race.

How can I be okay voting for Donald Trump despite the fact that so many people think he’s racist? First, as I said, I don’t believe it. Second, liberals have screamed racist so much that it means nothing to me. Third, the alternative, Hillary Clinton, was worse:

Despite President Trump’s weaknesses, I’m glad I voted for him, and I’m pleased with his efforts so far.

How can a Christian deny Arab child refugees?

How can a Christian deny Arab child refugees?

This is part 3 in a series of 35 questions.


3. If you’re a Christian how do you reconcile Good Samaritan/Sermon of the Mount with Trump denying Arab children safe passage?

Let me start by saying there’s going to be a little speculation here, but I’m not going to base my position on one or two passages of Scripture tossed out like a mic drop. While there are several passages that speak of treating foreigners well, there are also passages that infer wariness and caution.

First, God did not treat all foreigners the same. The most obvious, and the most controversial example, is God’s order to essentially exterminate the Canaanites. The wickedness of the Canaanites reached such a level that He used the nation of Israel to execute justice on every man, woman, and child. It should also be noted that this was not a rash decision. He actually waited 400 years before He decided it was time.

Second, God created the NATION of Israel. He set for them, specific laws that made them different from the surrounding nations, and He expected the Law to be followed. Sojourners did not have the same rights as the Israelites, despite the command to treat them with respect. If they did become part of the nation, they were expected to assimilate in ALL ways, i.e., follow the Law. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with expecting people who come here to be American citizens (legally), to assimilate to American culture.

Reading history indicates that immigrants coming to America have always tried to assimilate and become Americans. This phenomenon of the last twenty years or so, where immigrants come to America expect us to assimilate to them is foolish. Israel did that and was punished by God. We’re going to do that, and get punished by Islam.

Children are not the only age group looking for asylum. Unfortunately, the actions of adult refugees are hurting the safe passage of children. Simply Google ‘europe no go zones youtube’ and you’ll find plenty of reasons why so many people are not interested in helping people from the Arab countries: violence against women, violence in general, no-go zones, and not just a refusal to integrate but an insistence that we adopt their culture.

Other questions that need to be asked are, are the children traveling alone? Are they orphans? Where will they go? There needs to be a vetting process, and it appears that what vetting process there is, is substandard. Donald Trump’s TEMPORARY travel ban is supposed to address the vetting process.

Perhaps the most tragic thing of all, is that there is a good chance those children that do come here, will not adopt our culture either, but that of their parents, and they will grow into part of the problem.

Further Reading:

Why are conservatives anti-progress?

Picture of astronaut and lunar module on moon.

This is part 2 in a series of 35 questions.


This is quite a vague question. I wish Hawkins would have asked for clarification because my first thought is: define progress.

Conservatives love progress just as much as liberals do; the difference is how and what we define as progress. Some positions that liberals hold as making progress, I view as backwards and retrogressive.

If you view abortion as a woman’s right, blah, blah, blah, as progress, I would say, yes, I’m anti-progress. But I don’t see it as progress in the first place. I see abortion as regress, barbaric, and uncivilized. See what I mean about defining progress?

I see better, cheaper, cleaner ways to burn fossil fuels for energy as progress. I’m pro-progress. I don’t see solar and wind power as progress; I see stagnation, higher energy costs, and hurting the poor. That’s not progress.

I view the mountains of regulations championed by liberals as anti-progress.

You know what I’d like to see? I’d like to see a base station on the Moon, where we mine helium-3. It is said, that two shuttle bays full of helium-3 could power the United States for a year. That’s progress.

Do Republicans honestly believe voter fraud is a real issue?

John Hawkins of Townhall asked:

“I’m doing a Townhall column where I’ll honestly, w/out sarcasm, answer liberal questions to conservatives. Any libs want to ask questions?”

He actually wound up writing a second column as well. I enjoyed both very much, but as I was reading, I found myself thinking about how I would respond to those questions if they had been asked of me. So I decided this would be a golden opportunity to provide another perspective from another conservative. There’s nothing wrong with Hawkin’s answers, but I thought it would be fun, and a good writing exercise to answer each one from my point of view, with my additional thoughts, and in a couple places, where we differ.

1. Do R’s honestly believe voter fraud is a real issue and not just a blatant excuse to suppress min vote. Please provide proof.

Hawkins provides a good list of proofs; plenty to get you started. The only thing I would add is that an investigation needs to be conducted in Detroit because of discrepancies that were found when the recount began. If the recount wouldn’t have been canceled, many votes wouldn’t have been allowed because of discrepancies.

On the other hand, I don’t think that Hawkins did a good job addressing the accusation of conservatives wanting to suppress the minority vote. First, conservatives do NOT want to suppress the minority vote, they want to suppress voter fraud, even if it is minimal. They want to make sure that the people who are voting are the people who have a RIGHT to vote, not illegal immigrants, multiple voters, or dead people. Creating laws that minimize the ability for fraud to occur, such as proving you’re who you say you are with a picture id makes sense and applies equally to everyone regardless of skin color. Recently, according to the National Review, the United Kingdom and United states were the “only industrial democracies that don’t routinely require voters to show an ID1.” However, that’s changing in the United Kingdom2. The United States needs to follow suit.

I would turn the question around and ask, why do liberals think minorities are less capable than whites to obtain an id? Is it racist to ask a minority for id when they want to buy alcohol? If we can’t require an id to vote because it’s racist, then we need to stop requiring an id to buy alcohol, or for that matter, a gun. The idea that it’s harder for a minority to get an id is ridiculous, and quite frankly, racist.


  1. Fund, John. 2015. Voter ID: Other Countries Require It. National Review. Accessed: 4 Feb 2017. 
  2. Mason, Rowena. 2016. Voters in local elections will be required to show ID in anti-fraud trials. The Guardian. Accessed: 4 Feb 2017.