The author is one of the conservative frauds at the formerly conservative National Review, which under Rich Lowry has transformed itself into a version of “The Nation”.
In addition, the author was one of the NR worthies who went after the Covington Catholic kids when they were slandered by the media for allegedly being racist and antagonistic to some protesting leftists in DC a couple years ago. The author has still not apologized.
But the bottom line is this: Trump was EMPIRICALLY the most pro-life President since at least Reagan, and maybe earlier than that. His opponents in both 2016 and 2020 were and are vociferous pro abortion leftists. This author, and almost everyone else at NR, vigorously propagandized for Trump to lose which would have resulted in Hillary Clinton in 2016, and which did result in Joe Biden in 2020.
If the unborn are truly an issue with any Christian, then supporting the Leftists and opposing Trump was always both wrong and destructive. This author, and most of those still writing for NR, disgust me.
I have no interest in National Review or anyone who writes for them. As professed antiTrumpers, they are devoted to discrediting and undermining him. I took a quick look here- not being able to imagine how anyone could deny Trump’s pro-life creds. The headline made me nervous- as if I and the whole pro-life movement have been duped by Donald Trump. And the pro-lifers are really aren’t so pro-life.
This is a ridiculous attempt to discredit Trump for nursing home deaths, or at least not adequately protecting the elderly, and by extension the hypocrite pro-lifers who support him. The case of the elderly and infirm is inflated and mischaracterised in three ways by Frankovich. There is a prioritisation of human life in terms of most and least vulnerable, most and least innocent, and the baby in the womb is always the most vulnerable and most innocent and therefore the responsibility to protect and defend them is the greatest. The sick, elderly & disabled come next. They are not equal even though Frankovich describes them as being so similar that -‘what difference does it make?’ Second, the nursing home deaths are not direct and purposeful killing. Third, the responsibility in the chain of command regarding decisions that resulted in more, or unnecessary, nursing home deaths rightly falls on the Cuomo, Newsoms, and Murphys. I will throw in for free the outrageous use of a quote from Peter Singer to ridicule those who hold human life sacred.
There are so many other problems with this article. No rational person wanted ebola patients intentionally imported into our country, nor would they want open borders and free travel during CoVid. The comparison Frankovich makes is bizarre. He bases most of his jabbering on his accusation that Trump did not take the situation seriously. That is just not true, and the arguments based on that premise untenable. That sign he saw obviously messed with his head, but being a good bad journalist he could turn into a piece that confuses issues, blurs definitions, and is disingenuous in the whole. It serves no good purpose.
In addition to leading the charge against the Covington students who were under assault, the author justified pro-lifers supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016. As
Professor MCKenna says, in his courteous dissection of this unconvincing and often erroneous essay, President Trump didn’t phone in his support for Life he showed up in person. There is no justification for pro-lifers opposing him.
The author is one of the conservative frauds at the formerly conservative National Review, which under Rich Lowry has transformed itself into a version of “The Nation”.
In addition, the author was one of the NR worthies who went after the Covington Catholic kids when they were slandered by the media for allegedly being racist and antagonistic to some protesting leftists in DC a couple years ago. The author has still not apologized.
But the bottom line is this: Trump was EMPIRICALLY the most pro-life President since at least Reagan, and maybe earlier than that. His opponents in both 2016 and 2020 were and are vociferous pro abortion leftists. This author, and almost everyone else at NR, vigorously propagandized for Trump to lose which would have resulted in Hillary Clinton in 2016, and which did result in Joe Biden in 2020.
If the unborn are truly an issue with any Christian, then supporting the Leftists and opposing Trump was always both wrong and destructive. This author, and most of those still writing for NR, disgust me.
I have no interest in National Review or anyone who writes for them. As professed antiTrumpers, they are devoted to discrediting and undermining him. I took a quick look here- not being able to imagine how anyone could deny Trump’s pro-life creds. The headline made me nervous- as if I and the whole pro-life movement have been duped by Donald Trump. And the pro-lifers are really aren’t so pro-life.
This is a ridiculous attempt to discredit Trump for nursing home deaths, or at least not adequately protecting the elderly, and by extension the hypocrite pro-lifers who support him. The case of the elderly and infirm is inflated and mischaracterised in three ways by Frankovich. There is a prioritisation of human life in terms of most and least vulnerable, most and least innocent, and the baby in the womb is always the most vulnerable and most innocent and therefore the responsibility to protect and defend them is the greatest. The sick, elderly & disabled come next. They are not equal even though Frankovich describes them as being so similar that -‘what difference does it make?’ Second, the nursing home deaths are not direct and purposeful killing. Third, the responsibility in the chain of command regarding decisions that resulted in more, or unnecessary, nursing home deaths rightly falls on the Cuomo, Newsoms, and Murphys. I will throw in for free the outrageous use of a quote from Peter Singer to ridicule those who hold human life sacred.
There are so many other problems with this article. No rational person wanted ebola patients intentionally imported into our country, nor would they want open borders and free travel during CoVid. The comparison Frankovich makes is bizarre. He bases most of his jabbering on his accusation that Trump did not take the situation seriously. That is just not true, and the arguments based on that premise untenable. That sign he saw obviously messed with his head, but being a good bad journalist he could turn into a piece that confuses issues, blurs definitions, and is disingenuous in the whole. It serves no good purpose.
In addition to leading the charge against the Covington students who were under assault, the author justified pro-lifers supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016. As
Professor MCKenna says, in his courteous dissection of this unconvincing and often erroneous essay, President Trump didn’t phone in his support for Life he showed up in person. There is no justification for pro-lifers opposing him.