Jews For Hitler = Pro-lifers for Clinton

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print



1933:  “Well, sure, Hitler really hates Jews, but he has a great policy of getting everybody back to work!”  2016:  “Yeah, Hillary is an abortion extremist, but she really loves the welfare state!”



Hmmm. the willingness of Mark Shea and other Catholic “pro-lifers” to endorse Hillary abortion-uber-alles Clinton has attracted the attention of a writer outside of Saint Blogs.  Tom Riley at The American Thinker dissects this movement of the absurd:


Now that the practical choice is between coughing Clinton and terrifying Trump, the Seamless Garment crowd is making new attempts to co-opt pro-life sentiment in favor of the vociferously pro-abortion candidate – that is, Clinton.  This New Pro-Life Movement is supposedly bolder, more sincere, more consistent, and especially more “prudent” than the old (and conservative) one.

It’s wise to wave aside some of this with a sneer – especially the tried-and-false dilution of the pro-life message with the goofy pretense that opposing capital punishment makes innocent lives safer.  But it’s also wise to take seriously a more profound falsehood:  that the way to advance pro-life goals is to throw our full support behind the welfare state. 

Oddly enough, one of the most prominent proponents of this viewpoint is Mark P. Shea, whose self-written Wikipedia listing describes him as “an American author, blogger, and speaker working in the field of Roman Catholic apologetics” and whose forays on behalf of broad pro-lifery display all the telling logic and rhetorical effectiveness of a banana slug in the noonday sun.  Shea is fond of telling us such things as that the invasion of Europe must be encouraged by pro-life Christians, maybe because Jesus was a refugee, too.  It’s pointless to ask him whether little German girls ought to be raped by Jesus stand-ins.  Indeed, it’s pointless to offer counter-argument to anything Shea says, since he never offers argument.  He makes assertions and accuses anyone who disagrees with him of defying the Magisterium.

But Shea refers us to Matthew Tyson, whose presentation of the New Pro-Life Gospel is more explicitly reasoned and cogent.  Tyson reasons thus: pro-lifers have put all their authentic plastic fetal models into the wrong basket.  They’ve been working to elect Republicans for years.  They’ve concentrated on changing the composition of the Supreme Court.  Yet time and again, the Court has handed them defeats, and legalized abortion has continued unabated.  Therefore, pro-lifers must address the “root causes” of abortion – by expanding various welfare programs so women will not feel forced to seek the destruction of their children.

Like all the most effective lies, this one has a limited truth behind it.  Efforts to establish a pro-life – or even a strict constitutionalist – Supreme Court have proved less than encouraging.  Tyson is right that both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were decided by courts on which Republican presidents had appointed a majority of the justices.  (He’s certainly wrong, however, to characterize these courts as featuring a majority of conservatives.)  Why has this strategy proved a disappointment? 

One reason is that pro-life conservatives haven’t managed to place all their most favored nominees on the Court.  Please recall that Robert Bork was President Reagan’s first choice for the vacancy left in 1987 by the retirement of Justice Powell, and that Douglas Ginsburg was Reagan’s second choice.  (Ginsburg withdrew his nomination over marijuana use, arguably a necessary qualification for Democrat presidential candidates.)  Instead of Bork or Ginsburg, we got Anthony Kennedy – the “conservative justice” liberals love to flatter, and the deciding vote in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.  Why is it that we got Kennedy instead of Bork?  Because Bork was borked by just such Democrats as the “pro-life” Tyson proposes to vote for.  Let’s hear it for a progressive pro-life attitude!

Whole Woman’s Health is certainly the most extreme pro-abortion decision ever rendered by the Court – and it’s important to look at who, aside from Kennedy, rendered it.  We have Stephen Breyer (a Clinton appointee), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a Clinton appointee), Sonia Sotomayor (an Obama appointee), and Elena Kagan (an Obama appointee).  One of the reasons the grand pro-life strategy for the Supreme Court hasn’t delivered is that voters like Shea and Tyson have labored to thwart it.  Tyson mocks conservatives for electing Republicans in an effort to influence the composition of the Court: supposedly, in conformity with the commonplace definition of insanity often attributed to Albert Einstein, conservatives do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.  Is Tyson saner because he intends to the same thing over again (that is, vote Democrat) and get the same unacceptable result?

Tyson boils the whole pro-life emphasis on the U.S. Supreme Court down to a single question:  can pro-lifers overturn Roe v. Wade?  He concludes – reasonably, though not unassailably – that they cannot.  Yet is this the only question of importance to the movement that is likely to come before the Court?  Whole Woman’s Health shows that it is not.  Texas’s perfectly sensible restrictions on abortion mills could have stood without overturning Roe.  They didn’t stand because a Democrat-influenced Court is inevitably devoted to expanding Roe.  This is a process that will continue if the insouciant Mr. Tyson gets his way.  Will the Court overturn state requirements that only a physician can perform surgical abortions?  Following the example of California’s legislature, a Democrat Court almost certainly will.  Will the Court restrict even further the First Amendment rights of abortion opponents?  A Democrat Court will.  Will the Court lift restrictions on fetal tissue procurement and sale?  Yup – if the Democrats prevail.  Mandatory abortions for mothers deemed unfit?  Don’t count it out.  After all, Hillary is a big admirer of Margaret Sanger.

It’s all coming down that great big pro-abortion highway, folks, and “pro-lifers” Shea and Tyson are, in effect, cheering it on.  None of this stuff really matters, after all.  What really matters is “focusing on why.”  What really matters is “thinking deeper.”  What really matters is expanding the welfare state in every way imaginable.

An entertaining deficiency in Tyson’s argued thesis (and Shea’s unargued one) is the assumption that pro-lifers should practice something that can only be called vital utilitarianism.  Just as Jeremy Bentham thought ethics should focus on the greatest good for the greatest number, the new “pro-lifers” think our only concern should be the most lives for the greatest number.  In this assessment, questions of principle are mere distractions.  American law is establishing an expanding right to kill?  Who cares?  We can’t change that anyhow and shouldn’t even try.  The only question is, how can our heroes Shea and Tyson save the most lives?  Photos on their websites should let the critical reader know just what unlikely action heroes Shea and Tyson would be.  More important, utilitarianism of this sort, even if it’s not explicitly hedonistic, isn’t an ethical theory consistent with the Catholic faith.

Despite their ethical confusion, our new “pro-lifers” insist that the smart and prudent thing for pro-lifers to do is to support every state program for making lives easier, work less necessary, and businesses more likely to collapse.  Only that way – and not by maintaining pro-life principles – can we truly call ourselves pro-life.

This is the most offensive part of the argument because it is so hypocritical.  Expanding the welfare state too is the same old thing expected to produce new results.  Tyson indicates that aborting mothers are women in poverty who feel they don’t have options.  But why are there so many single mothers in poverty?  Shea and Tyson probably don’t remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan – although, as a liberal Democrat, he would certainly have won their vote.  Way back in 1965, Moynihan first began to assert that the expanded welfare state wasn’t good for poor people, and especially for poor blacks.  Experience since then has only tended to strengthen his distrust of such expansion.  Shea and Tyson like simplifications, so I’ll give it to them simplified.  Welfare programs contribute to the breakdown of the family, and the breakdown of the family contributes to the abortion culture.

Go here to read the rest.  In regard to Mark there is no great mystery here.  He has long despised the Republican Party and all its works.  That Democrats were pro-aborts prevented him from supporting the party where his political sympathies clearly reside.  Thus in prior years he would vote third party and urge his readers to do likewise.  This year he has endorsed Clinton because Trump is supposedly an existential threat to the Republic.  I agree that Trump will make a poor President in many ways, but only a blind yellow dog Democrat could argue that Clinton would be preferable.  To argue that a vote for Clinton is better from a pro-life stance is to enter the realm of the delusional.


More to explorer

Eating Their Own

  News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:   WASHINGTON, D.C.—Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is busy celebrating her victory over the


  1. We can overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow.

    1. Pass a law stripping federal courts of any jurisdiction over that question and a half-dozen others.

    2. Expand the Supreme Court and add five more justices – men drawn from the Federalist Society.

    3. Pass another law declaring that federal appelllate judges confirmed in office between 1992 and 2001 and after 2008 will henceforth be paid in potatoes – once a year.

    Of course, AM McConnell does not have the stones to do anything about the federal judiciary or about any other abusive federal agency.

  2. Welfare programs contribute to the breakdown of the family, and the breakdown of the family contributes to the abortion culture.
    This gets to the heart of Shea’s error, I think. His argument relies on a skyhook: the unargued assumption that welfare (and like programs) actually perform as advertised. In fact, they’ve proven to be devastating to individuals, families, and communities alike, achieving virtually none of their planners’ goals, but at titanic expense. Blacks, on the whole, are no better off than they were in 1968, and you could make a persuasive case that they’re in significantly worse shape.
    But to deluded leftists (but I repeat myself) like Mark, the catastrophic failure of left-liberal social policies never prompts reflection or–God forbid!–a rethinking of their assumptions. No! We just need to elect the same people again to enact more of the same wretched policies, and eventually the indicators will start moving in the right direction.

  3. Think while it’s still legal!
    Art and Don, You both hit it out of the ball park. The vitally important reason to vote Trump is that Crooked Hillary will name two, three or four far-left Supreme Court Justices that will make Constitutional the sorry fact of abortion as the nation’s public, puerile sacrament.
    Sycophant and lemming (I apologize to lemmings) Mark-who? exhibits a special strain of stupidity. Voting for the Welfare State does not qualify as a Corporal Work of Mercy. It’s like forcing someone else to do 50 push ups a day won’t build your strength and endurance.
    ‘Stay deplorable, my friends.”

  4. Our Founding Principles acknowledge “their Creator” and the sovereign person as created equal. The government denies the human soul and usurps the power, the unjust power, to declare that the sovereign person comes into being at birth. Being conceived brings sovereign personhood, free will and intellect. Being born brings the sovereign person into citizenship and the office of taxpayer.
    The newly begotten sovereign person brought into existence at conception (fertilization of the female egg by the male sperm), the morally and legally innocent sovereign person in the womb institutes the state by being the standard of Justice for the state, perfectly innocent at conception, with his own scientifically correct DNA. The newly begotten human being becomes a constituent of government at birth, a constituent of the President, a constituent of his Congressman and a constituent of his Representative, a citizen of his State and his Country.
    Roe v. Wade never bore the burden of proof that the newly begotten sovereign soul in the womb has no human, rational soul with free will, intellect and sovereign personhood. Roe v. Wade was predicated on the assumption that the newly begotten sovereign soul did not exist as a human being with personhood endowed by “their Creator” as an equal man. Justices Harry Blackmun and William Brennan through Roe v. Wade usurped the creative power of God to deny the human being his innate, that is, indwelling, human soul. In so doing the state through the court imposed atheism on the nation, the people who institute government.
    Violating the First Amendment’ prohibition against “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, to the newly begotten human person who has willed to survive, his civil right to life, the personification of God’s perfect Justice, the Supreme Court, through Roe v. Wade again imposed atheism on a child of God and the nation of his people, all Americans

  5. It is pretty rich that it is Shea who is stumping for Hillary. He spent the last two presidential elections castigating anyone supporting Romney or McCain because they were not perfect on every issue.

  6. “It is pretty rich that it is Shea who is stumping for Hillary. He spent the last two presidential elections castigating anyone supporting Romney or McCain because they were not perfect on every issue.”

    He has become the typical Catholic Social Justice Warrior. Reject a genuine defense of the truly poor and helpless (including those harmed by the evils of the welfare system) and go all out for statists solutions. Any dissent from such a solution is to act in defiance of God himself. For the expansive state is now his God.

    Shea now worships the Golden Calf of the State. He is an idolater.

  7. Mark Shea has the intellectual strength of Miss Frothingslosh, Fatima Yechburg.
    I’ll post a link later. Till then, Google it.

  8. Donald, I don’t think Shea has endorsed Hillary outright. If Iam not mistaken, he is still voting for some guy who nobody has heard of. He does say that Hillary is the lesser of the two evil vs Trump.

  9. This got a comment of the week award back in Feb after the article re Shea shilling for Sanders:

    Voting For Democrats Hitler -Berlin 1939
    Dear Friends in Christ, We encourage all faithful believers to vote in the upcoming elections which are so important to the future of our cities and of our beloved country which was once a shining star in Christendom.
    You can in good conscience vote for Adolf Hitler, but you cannot vote for him for the wrong reasons, which would be a mortal sin. You, as we all do, know that his government has killed millions of people, and millions of Jews, including thousands of Jewish babies, and that this will continue for the foreseeable future since he has told us this will be so and this is his Party’s publicly stated policy. If you vote for him and his government because you want them to kill Jews, that would be a mortal sin. You cannot vote for Hitler so that more Jewish babies will be killed, that would be a mortal sin.
    If you vote for him and his Jew-Killing government, it must be for good reasons. If you like the fact that they have made the trains run on time, and do not vote for him so Jews will be killed, that will be not only morally permissible, it will be an act of virtue. If you vote for him, not because more Jewish babies will die horrible deaths if he is elected (which, of course, is absolutely certain), knowing your own tax dollars are paying for the killing, but because he has increased employment here in the Fatherland and will continue to do so, that will be a civil good in accord with your moral duty as a good citizen. If you vote for Hitler because he has all but eradicated poverty and hunger (by his focus on preparing for the war that is now inevitable), in accord with the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount and the Gospel’s clarion call to social justice – you can proceed in good faith to vote for him and any Nazi Party candidate for any office, knowing you have followed your conscience and you will have no sin to confess. We all know that our tax money funds the Nazis killing programs, provides the money to run the Death Camps, pays for the ovens that cook away most of the evidence of the dead bodies, and pays for the fuel for the trains that bring the people to the camps. You cannot pay your taxes with the intent that these things be done. If however you pay your taxes, as all good citizens should, so that children (the children of good Germans) will be properly educated or, for example so that foreign workers here are properly housed and fed, then you can in good conscience pay your taxes and win merit in heaven for doing so.
    Also, you can vote for any member of the Nazi party, some of whose soldiers wear the Death’s Head Symbols, especially those Nazis who say they do not support the intrinsic evils of death and of racism that the Party has espoused for years and has made a reality here. You will know who they are if they say things like: “Yes, The Nazi Party has done and will continue to do these atrocities, but I am personally opposed to such atrocities;” or “I am personally opposed to gassing Jews so vote for me;” “It is their right to choose to kill Jewish babies, but this is against my personal conscience;” “I can keep my personal views on holocausts private, and vote for the common good of all citizens;” or “My religion, whose principles are explicitly contrary to those of the Nazi Party, will remain a private thing for me.”
    Pay attention: if a candidate says he is personally opposed to Hitler or he is personally opposed to Jewish genocide, you can in good conscience vote for such a candidate and we encourage this; even if such a candidate takes part in the public rallies with their clear quasi-religious message in support of Hitler. If a candidate says he is personally opposed to your tax money funding killing, paying for gas chambers, and buying the furnaces at Dachau, Buchenwald, Auschwitz and other locations, and you know what they are used for, you can still vote for such a candidate.
    If a candidate says he is personally opposed to denying your religious liberty, even though you know the Party will continue through legislation to do this, it will be an act of virtue to vote for such a candidate.
    Yours in Christ,
    German & Austrian Church Leaders

  10. Shea is more anti-Trump than pro-Hillary. That’s if we are to take what he says at face value. I would agree that the upshot of what he says is pro-Hillary. Of course, this has really been Shea’s view for the last ten years. He’s only more explicit about it now.

  11. “The greatest of those evils is the fact that every single “prolife” Christian who supports him will invariably find that they must immediately abandon the fight against abortion and devote all their *real* energies to *his* non-negotiables of racism, misogyny, Mammon-worship, violence, and grinding the faces of the poor.”

    Wait, Shea left out “basket of deplorables” and “islamophobic.” He better catch up with the talking points

  12. And it seems Shea has gone from condemning the “Debate Club at Auschwitz” to being a kapo at Auschwitz.

    Sad what idolatry will do to a man.

  13. OK “Clinton” – you have piqued my curiosity: are you Billy Boy or Hilllary? or up-and-coming Princess Chelsea? Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

Comments are closed.