Raising the Standard
The Lost Generation Remembering the 50 Million Murdered Since Roe v. Wade By Reed Ferguson
The Dark Roots of Abortion Abortion's Ideology Has Come to Light By Sarah Scherer
Liberty Cries Out
The Eco Manifesto
Interview with Brad Raffensperger
By Boris A. Abreu
By J. Thomas Perdue
By Kathleen Reynolds
COLLEGIATE NETWORK’S 2016–2017 PUBLICATION OF THE YEAR SPRING 2019
THE EDITORS i
Life and Death sub?
THE EDITORS
COLUMNS
FEATURES
3 Life and Death
6 March for Life
10 Brad Raffensperger Interview
By J. Thomas Perdue
By Oliver Bunner
By Kathleen Reynolds
CAMPUS
7 Kavanaugh's Karma
12 The Eco Manifesto
By McKenzie Sams
By J. Thomas Perdue
8 The Future of Aviation
14 The Lost Generation
By Ian LaCroix
By Reed Ferguson
4 The Campus Informant By J. Thomas Perdue
5 SGA Watch By Boris A. Abreu
9 Liberty Cries Out
16 KBO
By Boris A. Abreu
By Christopher Lipscomb
11 Howard Schultz
18 The Dark Roots of Abortion
By Madison Cooper
By Sarah Scherer
The Arch Conservative Editorial Board and Staff: 2018-2019 Editor in Chief J. Thomas Perdue
Book Editor Ross Dubberly
Executive Editor Reed Ferguson
Business Manager Sydney Robertson
Publishing Editor Boris A. Abreu
Contributors Christopher Lipscomb Oliver Bunner Sarah Scherer Madison Cooper Kathleen Reynolds
Campus News Editor Connor Foarde Online Editor Ian LaCroix
2 / The Arch Conservative
SPRING 2019
Welcome back!
As regular readers of The Arch Conservative may note, our quarterly print editions always feature a wide range of topics in reporting and opinion. This one is surely no exception, featuring Online Editor Ian LaCroix’s take on a new and innovative aviation company, my own critique of UGA’s environmental socialists, and contributor Kathleen Reynolds’ interview with Georgia’s new secretary of state, Brad Raffensberger. However, if a central theme is to be designated for this particular edition, it is abortion. Executive editor Reed Ferguson and contributor Sarah Scherer approach the abortion issue from unique perspectives, but a similar conclusion can be drawn from both pieces: Abortion is an unmistakably critical point of contention in today’s politics. The argument over abortion has raged for decades. It has occasionally turned violent, and has frequently shone a spotlight on arguably the most grotesque depravity wrought by progressivism. It can be difficult to compartmentalize all the talking points about abortion, the convenient euphemisms, the question of when life begins, what constitutes a woman’s body, etc. We just happened to get lucky recently, as Bill Nye, formerly a science guy, helped us out by compiling several pro-abortion talking points and using them to “slam anti-abortion activists,” as per CNN’s description. (Side note: I use the phrase “pro-abortion” instead of “pro-choice,” which I believe to be a euphemism. CNN’s dispense of “pro-life” in favor of “anti-abortion” seems to underprop this usage). Anti-abortion activists sometimes draw parallels between proabortion advocates of today and pro-slavery advocates of the 19th century. Some may find these comparisons odd, but keep in mind, slavery was much less taboo 160 years ago than abortion is today. Hopefully, they’ll share the same historical ash-heap. “When it comes to women’s rights, with respect to their reproduction, I think you should leave it to women. Nobody likes abortion, (cc: Lena Dunham) but you can’t tell people what to do,” says Nye. First off, I’m not sure how many of the 3,000 aborted fetuses per day in the U.S. would have grown up to be women and how many would’ve grown up to be men, but I’d guess it’s a good number of both. Even excluding the millions of pro-life American women, that point doesn’t seem to make much sense. Furthermore, we can absolutely tell people what not to do when the thing they want to do is murder another human being. Slaveholders argued that abolitionists who would bring about the end of slavery (by force)
SPRING 2019
were legislating and advocating from positions of no authority. It was slaveholders, they said, who would be affected most by abolishing slavery. What did abolitionists care what they did with their own property? Making that argument today, disregarding the millions of enslaved and abused black Americans, would be the end of a political career at least. Bill goes on to cite “bad science” as the root of anti-abortion activism. And hey, I’m no scientist, and I’m certainly no “science guy,” but if it’s bad science that tells us something that looks like a human and acts like a human might be a human, and the “good” science tells us that it’s actually a clump of cells that is part of the woman’s body until she decides she wants it, I have a hard time trusting Bill’s definition of good and bad. Making the argument that abortion is not murder must necessarily imply that A) a human fetus is not alive, or B) that murdering the innocent is permissible in some instances. Many slavery apologists argued that the debate was really about states’ rights. Begging the question: “The states’ rights to do what?” Abortion advocates who style themselves as pro-choice attract the similar challenge: “Choice to do what?” If the delegitimizing of an innocent human being is required for answering either question, I contend that no one ought to have that kind of right. Yet leftists find a way to dismiss millions of aborted children as non-human. In the eyes of antebellum law, a black man was only a man if he was set free at the discretion of white men, just as by today’s law, a baby is only truly alive if its mother wants it to be alive. This is not to mention the primitive pseudo-science that racists continue to cite today, in an effort to tell us that one race is superior or inferior. That’s bad science, yet it was accepted for a time. There is nothing new under the sun, and those who think the fight over abortion has the very soul of our nation at stake are correct. However, this battle is one we’ve had to fight before, and will almost certainly fight again. Bill Nye says nobody likes abortion, but the fanaticism demonstrated by the pro-abortion left suggests otherwise. We can only hope that their menace is consistently met with an even greater zeal to protect the most vulnerable of all Americans. Happy reading! b
The Arch Conservative /3
CAMPUS
CAMPUS
Still Waiting On a Resolution
I
t’s been over a month since the University of Georgia released a statement regarding the controversy surrounding Irami OseiFrimpong. In January, a video of the UGA teaching assistant being confronted by former UGA student and ArchCon alum Andrew Logan Lawrence surfaced. Lawrence argued with Osei-Frimpong over his series of racist, anti-white tweets, some of which appeared to call for violence against white people. In January, contributor Oliver Bunner wrote on the controversy, and his piece has since become the most trafficked in the almost six-year history of The Arch Conservative. The University is still operating under pressure from concerned students, alumni, and donors, but it remains to be seen what action it will take.
A Winter to Remember
D
espite continued dominance against Georgia Tech, the last few months have been tough for Georgia football and basketball, at least between whistles. After another successful year, Georgia came up just short of making the College Football Playoff after heartbreaking loss in the SEC Championship, and followed that up by laying an egg in the Sugar Bowl. The basketball team, meanwhile, is going through its worst record in recent memory in Head Coach Tom Crean’s first campaign. Despite this slight regression, the future is looking bright for both teams. Most recently, the Dawgs surprised the college basketball world by landing five-star guard Anthony Edwards, the top-ranked guard in the nation, and arguably the biggest triumph of Crean’s Georgia tenure so far. Kirby Smart also finished strong on National Signing Day, finishing with the No. 1 (or 2, depending on which ranking system you trust) recruiting class in the nation.
S G A WAT C H
T
he spring semester is well under way, and the Student Government Association has been busy planning and implementing new initiatives and proposals that will shape student life in the coming years. Undoubtedly, the administration led by Ammishaddai Grand-Jean will be working even harder to implement their proposals as the season fast approaches for the new candidates to apply, interviews to be conducted, and an endless flood of stickers, stumping, and social media posts promoting each ticket. The formal elections process will begin, per the SGA calendar, on February 25th of this year, and end March 6th, with periods for runoff voting built in, if at all necessary. Rest assured, The Arch Conservative will be there to cover it all—including our annual coverage of the debate between the prospective candidates in which they flesh out their platforms for grand change—which is a challenge in and of itself. This being the start of the semester, a grand quantity of legislative work has not been done, as much of the senators begin gearing up to either run again, retire, or recruit candidates to replace them. However, some things of note have changed and been placed upon the agenda from previous semesters that have ramifications for students—or at least those with some technical prowess. Resolution 31-08, titled “A Resolution to Expand the Academic Honesty Policy” was placed upon the table for voting purposes, and recommended to the Educational Affairs Committee. Resolution 31-08 implements language regarding the sometimes-unclear policies regarding the use of smartwatches, such as the well-known Apple Watch,
and their usage during exams; some instructors care if students wear smart watches during exams, and others do not. Resolution 31-08 formally proposes that “smartwatches should be turned off and put away during an examination” and proposes the concurrent punishment for a violation of the academic honesty policy. Essentially, the Resolution seeks to clean up an ambiguity in the prohibited technologies section of University Honesty Policy. Perhaps the most fascinating piece of legislation currently on the table is Resolution 31-11, titled “A Resolution to Establish a Professional Clothing Closet to Provide Free Business Attire for Students.” This bill carries much support in the Senate, and is a lofty goal indeed to implement. The bill outlines what SGA sees as a need for a professional dress closet, in which students who do not have access to professional attire may acquire it as needed for business or other professional engagements, which we hope the students of this University are doing. The bill outlines that many other SEC schools and “peer, aspirational, and in-state institutions have already established similar professional clothing closet programs,” and the University should jump on board. The question here becomes if and how the University will acquire the clothing and how much it will cost to run the program, because as any good intern knows, professional attire is not cheap. The bill has been proposed to the Career Center for further consideration and study by the appropriate parties. In other, perhaps more exciting news, The Arch Conservative has been doing a little digging and inquiry and has uncovered potential ethics violations based upon funding allocations with certain committees—though as of the writing of this piece, investigation into these claims is still ongoing. As it would be reckless to report incomplete stories and those based upon word of mouth and possibly malicious rumors, we are unable to provide more details at this time—though we hope there is understanding for the need to uphold the principles of journalistic integrity and good faith reporting. We encourage our readers to seek the truth wherever it may be found, and at this time, will leave you with a reminder to watch this space.
Some Recruiting of Our Own
I
f you are interested in conservative journalism, opinion writing, podcasting, or event-hosting on your campus, look no further than The Arch Conservative! We are currently looking for graphic designers and campus news reporters, and we always welcome new contributors. If you have a story idea, or would like further information on what we are all about, email us at archconuga@gmail.com, or message us on our social media @archconuga.
— J. Thomas Perdue
4 / The Arch Conservative
SPRING 2019
SPRING 2019
The Arch Conservative / 5
COLUMNS
COLUMNS
Averted Eyes, Selective Sight
Kavanaugh’s Karma
The Media’s refusal to acknowledge the Pro-life movement
Sub?
O
A
n January 18th, the annual March for Life occurred in Washington D.C. The March gathers thousands of pro-life individuals from around the country into the capital to stand and speak up on behalf of those who never got the chance to defend themselves. Over 50 million children have been murdered in the womb since the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, and with the March’s high attendance each year, it seems many Americans are finally waking up to the fact that abortion is a moral travesty. Every year, when the March for Life takes to the streets, the media makes a concerted effort to focus on anything except for the precise purpose of the March. This year was no different, as the media chose to focus on two specific events that occurred at the March, both of which allowed them to divert attention from the real pro-life movement, and instead focus on narratives that conveniently align with their preconceptions about pro-lifers. The first event involved conservative political commentator and March for Life speaker Ben Shapiro’s mention of “baby” Adolf Hitler. Shapiro invoked a common thought experiment heard by approximately everyone: Given the opportunity, would you kill Adolf Hitler as a baby in order to prevent the mass slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust during World War ll? In a short out-of-context clip that went viral on Twitter, it appears as if Shapiro, the Orthodox Jew, is defending Adolf Hitler. However, in Shapiro’s full statement, it is clear he was refuting a racist argument made by the Left that abortion has the added benefit of decreasing crime rates. Considering a large percentage of abortions occur in minority communities, this argument would implicate that allowing black babies to be born
Oliver Bunner is a freshman studying electrical engineering. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.
6 / The Arch Conservative
means that inevitably more crime will occur. Given this full context, the connection to the Hitler thought experiment is made clear; it is not moral to pre-emptively punish and murder individuals for crimes they could potentially commit in the future. Leftist media, instead of confronting Shapiro’s points on their merits, decided to extract a shortened clip from his entire segment with the malicious intent of making Shapiro, and by extension his listeners, seem like kooky defenders of Hitler. The second event the media chose to focus on is significantly more important than the aforementioned controversy, and speaks to the Left’s broader hatred for religious, pro-life Christians in America. As the March was nearing its conclusion on the 18th, a group of Covington Catholic High School students were waiting for their bus to arrive so they could start their journey back home. Many of these students happened to be wearing red MAGA hats. Presumably, it was this article of clothing that caught the attention of two groups of people protesting the March for Life: the Black Hebrew Israelites and a group of Native Americans. Most of America has seen at least some of what followed; the picture of Native American Nathan Phillips being smirked at by high school student Nick Sandmann was certainly a powerful image at first glance. However, as the story began to develop throughout the following days, the narrative pushed by the media of a white nationalist, MAGA-hat toting Trump supporter menacingly confronting and belittling a helpless Native American Vietnam veteran turned out to be entirely false. In fact, the word “false” does not sufficiently emphasize how drastically the media got this story wrong. We later learned that throughout the span of a two-hour confrontation, caught on video, the Covington high schoolers did not once use slurs at the Native Americans, nor did they
chant “build that wall,” as Nathan Phillips claimed. Rather, it was the high schoolers who had to deal with slurs, as the Black Hebrew Israelites, a cult with a long history of antisemitism, repeatedly called them “f*gs” and taunted a black student with the n-word. Furthermore, it was Nathan Phillips who went out of his way to confront the high school students, not the other way around as the media portrayed. So, by all available evidence, of those involved, everyone except the Covington Catholic students were the aggressors. These facts beg the question, how could the media collectively get a basic story, with hours of video evidence, so drastically wrong? Why focus on and misrepresent Shapiro’s Hitler comments instead of on the overarching message of the March, unless you have an ulterior motive? Why jump to smear literal children for the “evil” act of behaving like the only adults in a setting by calmly smirking in response to a stranger obnoxiously banging a drum in their face, unless you wished to show the uninformed masses your agenda that pro-lifers are evil, hackneyed morons? Of course, these questions are rhetorical, as the answer to both are simple: The media, instead of acknowledging the pro-life movement’s qualms with abortion and confronting its arguments with the attention they deserve, would rather smear the movement with evil character assassinations. And sadly, it doesn’t seem like they are going to change their behavior any time soon. b
SPRING 2019
After Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the the bench, the nation speculated who President Trump would nominate as Kennedy’s replacement to sit on the highest court in the land. Upon Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a district judge from Washington D.C., the nation braced for an intense confirmation debate between Republicans and Democrats. No one predicted, except perhaps Dianne Feinstein, the misrepresentation and destruction of Kavanaugh’s character that came about. When accusations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh were made public, Democrats rushed to the defense of his accusers, citing “believe all women,” as a new standard of morality. Was this really the new precedent to which Democrats would hold men accountable in a court where justice is to be blind and evidence is to be submitted and reviewed carefully? With the new accusations against Virginia Governor Ralph Northam and Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax, it seems implied that the new moral precedent set by Democrats only applies to Republicans and those nominated by President Trump. The irony in the accusations toward Justice Kavanaugh compared to the accusations surrounding Ralph Northam and Justin Fairfax is astounding. Kavanaugh was humiliated on national television for weeks for his entries in a yearbook and unsubstantiated sexual assault allegations without an opportunity to defend his character. However, Fairfax has now been accused of a sexual assault from 2004, and Northam has been accused of being a racist with evidence found in old yearbooks of him covered in blackface while in medical school. Even more ironic is Fairfax has McKenzie Sams is a second year intended-accounting student. She is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative. SPRING 2019
hired the same lawyers who defended Kavanaugh, while Fairfax’s accuser has chosen the law firm which represented Kavanaugh's accuser, Dr. Christine Ford. Why would Democrats proceed in the humiliation of a man with baseless accusations while sitting silent when credible accounts of sexual assault are being presented with factual evidence? It is because they will stop at nothing to retain power in the government. Left-wing political games are transparent to the American people, as Democrats seem unable to overcome
their disappointment with the results of 2016 presidential election. Instead of creating real policies to run on in 2020, the Left would rather slander the names of men and women who are promoted under the administration of President Trump for pure political gain. If this were not true, why then would Dianne Feinstein sit on the allegations against Kavanaugh for so long, and why would Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, both front-runners for the 2020 Democratic nomination, be so inclined to interrogate Kavanaugh on personal issues? Democrats do not care about “believing all women” unless it helps them gain political power. Consequently, this behavior by
the Democratic Party contributes to the degradation of American morals and values. More specifically, prominent figures on the Left have expressed caution to the public about the allegations against Justin Fairfax. At least they can hold members of their own party to the same standards as they hold Republicans and Trump supporters. The hypocrisy of the Left never fails, but grows day-by-day as their moralizing is turned on them and forces them to face their own reflection, or choose to avoid it entirely. Additionally, one should consider the current political structure of the Virginia state government. With top Democratic leaders in Virginia under the spotlight for potential wrongdoings, the chance for a Republican to become Governor is a very real possibility. Certainly a Republican governor in a blue state such as Virginia provides poor optics for Democrats going into 2020. If the people of Virginia find a Republican governor more fit to run the state and its needs, Virginia may become a hard-fought swing state in 2020, just like in 2016 when Hillary Clinton and Sen. Tim Kaine narrowly eeked out a victory. The truth is, Ralph Northam’s actions are unacceptable and we should hold all public leaders accountable for their actions regardless of political party. Even with Kavanaugh’s name having been slandered by left-wing media, Justin Fairfax deserves the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Every citizen deserves to be treated equally in a court of law regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, and political party. This obviously does not mean the claims of women who were sexually assaulted should be silenced, but if we do not uphold the traditions of our justice system in full, America will face a much greater threat in the future to our society and republic as a whole. b
The Arch Conservative / 7
COLUMNS
COLUMNS
Blade:
Liberty Cries Out
The Future of Aviation
The Venezuelan People’s Struggle for Freedom
B
I
efore the age of modern commercial aviation, flying was a luxurious affair. While today, one can get away with wearing nearly anything on a flight, in an earlier age, air travel was reserved for one's finer garments. When I was younger, my grandfather still insisted on wearing a navy blazer, slacks, and repp stripe tie on his flight back to New York, despite the casual nature of modern flying. He, however, was from a different time, a time where flying was the pinnacle of wealth and affluence; a vessel for great fashion and design. A time known as “the golden age of aviation.” The ’50s and ’60s brought forth the jet age, a time where affluent flyers flew quicker and more comfortably than ever before. In these days, flying was not a prerequisite to a vacation, rather, it was part if it. Gentlemen donned three-piece suits and ladies wore their finest dresses with heels; with complimentary liquor service and hours of time to pass. It was more of a lavish cocktail party than a flight. Passengers were treated to gourmet meals, a spacious cabin, and impeccable service. While air travel was reserved for the upper echelon, patrons certainly got what they paid for. In the modern age of commercial flying, affordability has been achieved at the expense of style and comfort. Although many aspects of modern flying make traveling safer and more convenient, a social culture was lost in the wake of these changes. Over the past thirty years, the average price of a plane ticket has decreased by about 50%, and with it, all the luxuries and comforts that flyers of yore were once accustomed to. Cabins have become more cramped and seats are less comfortable, making patrons increasingly irritable. Accommodations like complimentary beverages and reasonable legroom have all but disappeared for the average flyer. Over
Ian LaCroix is a junior studying political science. He is Online Editor of The Arch Conservative.
8 / The Arch Conservative
the past several years, Airline companies have collectively engaged in a race to the bottom, stripping more accommodations and adding more seats to flights in the interest of lower airfare and greater margins. With more patrons being forced into smaller spaces, and the growing trend of air rage becoming more serious, a tipping point is surely in sight. Due to the growing passenger discontent around commercial flying, niche airline startups like Blade are focused on “bringing back precision, style, and detail to aviation.” Blade was founded in 2014 by Rob Wiesenthal, a former Sony and Warner Music Group executive, and Steve Martocci, a co-founder of GroupMe. Blade is a digitally powered aviation company focused on bringing aviation back to its former glory. It is doing this by tapping into the ondemand transportation market promulgated by companies like Uber, Lyft, and Bird, and applying it to the aviation sector. The company uses an app to crowdsource flights on helicopters, seaplanes, and jets; essentially you can book a seat on a flight instantly using the mobile Blade app. At the time of its founding, Blade served the limited detail of providing helicopter flights from New York City to the Hamptons, advertising itself as a convenient, stylish, and comfortable alternative to sitting in traffic on the Long Island Expressway. Since then, the company has expanded to using seaplanes and jets to surrounding Northeast destinations as well as destinations like Miami and Los Angeles. It has a total of six “lounges” in New York, Nantucket, and Miami that are used as a waiting area of sorts for clients awaiting their helicopter. The lounges a curated to be reminiscent of the 1960s, in an attempt to remind clients of the golden age of aviation. Company reps don stylish uniforms designed specifically for Blade by Jimmy Choo founder Tamara Mellon. The lounges are designed to be a luxury waiting area, where clients can comfortably wait for their helicopter while sipping on Blade’s signature beverage: Rosé. The young company has been among the first aviation services to offer helicopter
transfers from Manhattan to surrounding airports like JFK, LaGuardia, Newark, Teterboro, and Westchester. For around $150, clients can skip the hour-long ride through traffic from the city to the airport and get there in a 5-minute helicopter ride. In a city as dense as New York, this idea is revolutionary for the wealthy clientele of the city. Blade even offers jets and helicopter transfers from NYC to exclusive festivals like Coachella, Ultra, and Sundance Film Festival. This service represents an attempt to tap into the millennial proclivity for spending on exclusivity and experiences over tangible goods. Indeed, Blade is among the many up and coming companies that focus on selling experiences and a lifestyle over a specific product. Their aesthetically curated Instagram posts of young, wealthy, attractive people are used to sell an exclusive lifestyle and experience to image-obsessed millennials. However, this clever marketing may just be the thing that changes commercial aviation forever. As younger generations become more obsessed with the way they present themselves on social media sites, we will see lifestyle/experience based marketing schemes become increasingly successful. As more and more people become aggravated with the inconveniences and uncomfortability of modern commercial flying, we are likely to see more companies like Blade provide clients with unique and precise flying experience. Although Blade’s tickets sell for much higher than the average flight, in the coming years I predict people will be willing to spend more money on flying in order to escape the terrors of commercial flying, to have a different flying experience than what they’re accustomed to. The millennial preference of memorable experiences over tangible goods will translate to an aviation market focused around style and comfort over affordability. As companies like Blade become more popular, aviation could rediscover its former glory of the ’60s.
b
SPRING 2019
As of late, the international scene has been relatively quiet. Too quiet. For a world so connected, it has been a relatively peaceful start to 2019. However, the people of the world paid attention as the Venezuelans, a long-suffering people, began another series of protests against the illiberal government of strongman Nicolas Maduro. After contested elections in May 2018, in which the opposition boycotted due to widespread claims of fraud, Maduro claimed a second term in a decisive victory, winning 68 percent of the vote, a suspiciously large margin to any keen observer. However, on January 23, 2019, the head of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó declared himself president of a country long wracked by violent protests and clashes between government forces and poor protestors.
experiment, the economy has collapsed in a spectacular fashion, causing thousands of Venezuelans to flee the country in which commodities are affordable. The country suffers from widespread food shortages— though not for the leaders--and runaway hyperinflation that threatens to make the currency practically worthless. An IMF report claims that the country’s inflation could reach 10 million percent by the end of this year. Ordinary Venezuelans cannot feed their own families, while Maduro continues to bash business owners and drive what should be a strong economy into the ground. To put some numbers behind the claims, Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves, standing on around 297 billion barrels, but production continues to decline, and oil export values are at their lowest in decades, all because of gross
Mr. Guiadó’s move came as a stunning rebuke to a strongman who has overseen a spectacular collapse in what should be a thriving economy. Under Maduro’s socialist
mismanagement of the state-run oil company, Petróleo de Venezuela. Out of this new crisis, Guiadó has placed legitimacy to his claim by citing two articles of the Venezuelan constitution, which allow the president of the National Assembly the ability to temporarily claim power and to call fresh elections. The international community shares this sentiment, and almost immediately after Guiadó declared himself president, the Trump administration backed him as the legitimate leader of the nation, signaling that it was past time for Maduro to step off the stage. For the most
Boris A. Abreu is a senior studying political science and international affairs. He is Publishing Editor of The Arch Conservative.
SPRING 2019
part, the international world has stood behind Guiadó and the Venezuelan people, including most of Latin America, the European Union, and several smaller nations of the world. The EU, in fact, has issued an ultimatum to Maduro:that if he does not hold elections within 8 days, all 28 EU nations will recognize Guiadó as president. They recognize that the voice of democracy and liberty has long been repressed. Of course, the typical international boogeymen backed Maduro, including Russia, Cuba, Iran, and Turkey, and China, who laughably claimed, “they don’t interfere in other countries’ affairs”. This should give the casual observer an idea of who Maduro chooses as allies, and why this nation, that has been crushed underneath the boot of socialism, has grown an ill temper towards its strongman leader. Of course, some criticize the United States’ interfering in other nations’ domestic affairs, and for good cause, considering our rather checkered history in the region and support of some sketchy coups and power struggles. However, in this affair, the Trump administration has made an excellent move in forcing Maduro’s hand. In this day and age, any power that we have but are not utilizing is fully wasted. Part of me wishes to park a carrier group off the coast and dare Maduro to make a move, but pragmatism is a better choice here. We have the might to stand up for the principles of liberty and democracy, and to show that a republican system of governance stands far superior to the mismanaged ideological faith in a socialist system of governance. I am not of the opinion that we should intervene militarily, for that would be reckless and misguided, but our ability to project our power and ideals is something that I believe the long-repressed people of Venezuela should be able to count on. The Venezuelan people have suffered, bled, fought, and died, all against a man whose “socialist” ideals have bankrupted what should be a prosperous nation, all in the latest abject failure of Karl Marx’s grand experiment. It goes to show that the beautiful principles of liberty will triumph against the cold, dark evils of socialist policies. b
The Arch Conservative / 9
INTERVIEW COLUMNS
Exclusive Interview
harden and protect our database? How do we work to make sure our voting systems and machines are secure, even our website for corporations and business licenses? In other words, cybersecurity will be one of the overarching concerns that we have over the next four years.
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger By Kathleen Reynolds
KR: How do you anticipate benchmarking success in cybersecurity initiatives? Are there certain states that are really doing it well or will Georgia be setting the standard with what your office is pursuing?
Elected as Georgia’s new Secretary of State in November, Secretary Brad Raffensperger is also the CEO and owner of Tendon Systems, LLC, a specialty contracting and engineering design firm with nearly 200 employees. Additionally, he served two terms in the Georgia General Assembly from 2015-2019. Brad and his wife, Tricia, have been married for 42 years and live in Johns Creek. The following is an interview between Secretary Raffensperger and Correspondent Kathleen Reynolds which took place on February 11, 2019. KR: Drawing on your experience as a business executive, what most prepared you for your time in the political field, both as a state representative and now in your position as Secretary of State?
KR: Do you anticipate the General Assembly will approve a budget for the new voting system that you are suggesting be implemented throughout the state?
BR: The beautiful thing about the Secretary of State office is that it touches licensing, corporations, securities, and charities. If you look at that, that is really a business background. I’m a licensed engineer and a licensed contractor, so I understand the critical importance for a streamlined business licensing process. As corporations go, we passed a bill a few years ago, and went into the process of implementing it, which would let a business owner renew their corporation for up to 3 years. That’s the type of thing that we do in Georgia that is pro-business, pro-license holder, and really lets people focus on their careers as opposed to being focused on filling out paperwork.
BR: Yes – if you look at last year, we had three bills on voting systems and I think some of the county election board supervisors and members were caught unawares. They didn’t realize this was moving toward the General Assembly so quickly, and wanted to be brought into the process. So over this past year, we had a state commission that was started by then-Secretary of State Brian Kemp, and Representative Barry Fleming was the co-chair of that. They went through and developed recommendations for the work of the General Assembly. I believe that everyone recognizes the system was too old. It’s not like you can pull out one part and put in a new part; we need a total replacement with these systems. The advantage of that, also, is that there are some improvements in voting technology, and we will be able to upgrade the software every few years as we move through with the systems that we have.
KR: Do you mind expanding more on your licensing and corporations responsibilities and your priorities in those areas going forward? BR: As it relates to corporations, like I said, what we would want to do is implement the bill that passed a few years ago to let you renew your corporation for three years. As it relates to licensing, one of the things we would like to look at is making sure that wherever we can have reciprocity with other states, we do. We have a lot of people moving into Georgia. Particularly when anyone from a military background gets posted here serving their country, along with their spouse, we want to make sure that we expedite the process for the one who is a license holder in another state so they can start practicing their profession here.
KR: As far as your election-related responsibilities as Secretary of State, what are some of your priorities moving forward? BR: Number one is a new voting system. The system we have right now is 17 years old, so it needs to be updated. When I ran, I said I believe we need an updated voting system with a verifiable paper ballot trail. I think the audit trail with a paper ballot serves a lot of functions, but one of the key ones is that it gives a voter confidence that before they cast their ballot they can actually look at their ballot, place it in the optical scanner, scan it where it is counted, and then it drops into a box where we can go back and do recounts and also audits. That’s what you want to do: give people the confidence that whoever won that race truly did win and whoever lost truly did lose. And I think that what people want is that confidence that their vote counted, and I think that will be a great step forward.
Kathleen Reynolds is a fourth year studying marketing and economics. She is a first-time contributor to The Arch Conservative. 10 / The Arch Conservative
KR: Perception of voter suppression has been a hot topic, especially in Georgia’s last election cycle. As chief elections officer, what is your perspective on this topic and how do you hope to restore voter confidence in this area for those worried about election integrity? BR: When people talk about voter suppression, I have not seen that in Georgia. We had the largest turnout we’ve ever had for a midterm election. Also, Georgia is one of the leading states with online voter registration. In other words, when you go to the Department of Driver Services [DDS], you can do online registration right then and there. What a lot of people don’t realize is that Georgia is an opt-out state as opposed to opt-in. In other words, you have to say – I want to opt-out, I don’t want to register to vote – and if you don’t say that, you will be automatically registered to vote as a part of getting your driver’s license. That actually has encouraged and expanded our voter rolls of people who are registered voters. Then we have free ID also to lower any barriers that you could have to encourage voter participation.
KR: What do you anticipate will be the biggest challenges facing your office in the next four years? BR: Getting our new voting systems in place is number one. Also, just recently, many of our leadership team was in DC for two conferences – one was for the National Association of Secretaries of State and one was the National Association of State Election Directors – and the overriding theme of both of those conferences was cybersecurity. That is a race with no finish line, something we must always be working at. How do we make sure we
SPRING 2019
BR: I think we’ve done a good job because we haven’t been hacked. In fact, nationwide in the 2018 cycle no one hacked an election system anywhere in the country from either a friend or foe, domestically or foreign. So I think all the states are working and understand how critically important that is. I think Georgia has done a good job, and our measure of success is
that our systems are not penetrated or hacked because that’s the kind of thing that can keep you up at night.
KR: What do you think are some of the most significant lessons that we can take away from the 2018 general election in Georgia? BR: Number one is that when voters are engaged, voters vote, and that is a good thing. We also, from a standpoint of monitoring and being ready for elections, should not be caught unawares with a strong turnout. The Republicans will be very energized, and I’m sure that the Democrats will be very energized. We then prepare for big numbers and that is what we will be working on with our county elections boards: to get them ready for those numbers with the new voting machines in place. b
COLUMNS
The Man of Means & Moderates Sub?
T
witter politics, and, most prominently, the anti-politics politician. Who even is Howard Schultz? Wait, the Starbucks guy is running for president? Yes, the guy who labels his employees as “partners” is ready to make “partners” of us all, from the White House. Considering running as an independent, Schultz has taken heat from establishment (and really, all) Democrats. To be fair, though, he has slammed them just as much. Labeling the Democratic Party “out of touch,” Schultz quickly made an enemy of the left. This may be to his advantage, considering that it seems every high-profile Democrat has decided to run for the presidency. And now, with Biden buzz on the rise, the Independent ticket is a safer place for a selfmade (yes, self-made, no million-dollar loans included) billionaire. As the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz has made a name for himself as a charismatic, generous boss. And it’s worthwhile to mention he totally overcorrected with Starbucks’s past scandals involving supposed racism and overall prejudice. I’m sure everyone remembers when a homeless person was ejected from a Starbucks: shortly after, Madison Cooper is a senior studying political science. She is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.
SPRING 2019
Starbucks vowed to be a safe place for homeless people. It was around that time when the speculation of a possible political future for Schultz began to rise. Clearly those speculators were right. Welcome to the big leagues, Howard. So, what is he running on? That seems to be the million (or billion, in his case) dollar question right now. We know that Schultz thinks the Democrats’ current agenda is both “un-American” and “ridiculous.” However, Schultz very publicly doubts the capabilities of President Donald Trump, going so far as to label him “despicable.” It’s been a while, like since Ross Perot, that a centrist has been able to capture a huge audience. And, I believe, he’s going to take those centrist sentiments and run with them. In the current political climate, it’s really not that hard to label one’s self as “center-blank,” dependent upon which policy areas one considers important and what’s going on in the political sphere at the time. Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, saw himself as fit to run in 2016 considering both parties couldn’t have been further from each other both in terms of policy and the character of their candidates. But could Howard Schultz, as an independent instead of a libertarian, possibly do the job Johnson couldn’t? Because Gary Johnson labeled himself as a libertarian, he was able to rope in those who classified themselves as libertarian. However, independents who don’t necessarily identify as libertarian (because let’s face it, that’s a pretty niche ideology
once the ballots are being cast), weren’t really given an alternative. Libertarians and moderates are not synonymous, but both groups could be persuaded to vote third party. The timing couldn’t be better for an independent to run for the presidency. The U.S. just went through the longest government shutdown in its history. The shutdown’s effects were felt throughout the country, specifically in the travel industry which, towards the end, was seeing losses of $100 million a day. Polarization levels in the legislative branch, executive branch and general electorate have gotten to the point where any sign of cohesiveness is considered “reaching across the aisle,” the cardinal sin of modern American politics. Compromise is a dirty word. The 2016 election was undoubtedly one of the most divisive events of modern U.S. politics. And with a similar financial background to our billionaire president, Schultz has every reason to brand himself as “pragmatic.” At least, he’s covered his tracks with making sure he has evidence of being both a philanthropy boss, and being weary of the direction the Democratic party is moving in. He’s hired immigrants in response to the President’s immigration rhetoric. He’s provided healthcare for Starbucks’ “partners” in response to the attempted repeal of the Affordable Care Act. He knows the power of the centrist vote. He’s been waiting for the opportunity to jump in as a kind, reasonable alternative for President. b The Arch Conservative / 11
FEATURES
FEATURES
The Eco Manifesto The Class Struggle against Imperialist Chicken By J. Thomas Perdue
W
hen they aren’t arguing about whether Slate has too many white writers, if the impending revolution will be inclusive of the differently-abled, or whether the transgender movement is anti-lesbian, the factional forces of left-wing politics can come together to form a formidable political force. While occasionally a laughing stock (see PETA’s two cents on toxic masculinity), left-wing team-ups often manifest as a Justice-Cerberus™, a multi-headed killing machine that can cause real concern among the right, the patriarchy, corporate America, and the rest of the blacklist. The joining of pro-Palestine activists with the Women’s March and the addition of black and brown to the rainbow flag are just a couple of examples. In January, a new and local iteration of the intersectional carnival honed in on one of the left’s favorite boogeymen: Chick-fil-A. Introducing “EarthStrike.” It’s not the rejected title of a 1980s sci-fi box office bomb; it’s a climate-change activist group. The group’s Athens chapter is allied closely with and generally comprised of our friendly neighborhood Young Democratic Socialists of America, as The Red & Black reported. At a meeting at the Miller Learning Center on January 15, the coalition of EarthStrike, YDSA, and 100% Athens, another environmental group, made a list of demands to an audience of a few dozen students and townies. The eco-manifesto caught the attention of national conservative media when it singled out Chick-fil-A. According
J. Thomas Perdue is a senior studying journalism. He is Editor in Chief of The Arch Conservative. 12 / The Arch Conservative
to The Red & Black: “Athens EarthStrike said UGA should not allow Chick-fil-A restaurants on campus, claiming the restaurant chain’s non-compostable packaging leads to much of the university’s food waste. The Athens EarthStrike speakers also said Chickfil-A does not sustainably source poultry, which contributes to climate change via greenhouse gas emissions.” Curiously enough, Chick-fil-A’s was the primary head that EarthStrike intended to roll. They went on to criticize the state for its subsidies of peanut and cotton farmers, but abstained from attacking the University, other than for its toleration of Chickfil-A. In 2010, UGA created its Office of Sustainability, which devised a plan to reduce carbon emissions and landfill waste, and conserve water and energy. Simply put, this effort is failing. After footing the bill for eco-friendly equipment, such as solarpowered recycling bins, the University is not anywhere close to its stated goals. Considering the Office of Sustainability’s fruitless effort to reduce UGA’s carbon footprint, from a reduction in fossil fuel use to more eco-friendly transportation, Chick-fil-A seems like an odd target for EarthStrike to single out. It seems odd, that is until we remember who we’re dealing with: fanatic ecocomrades, the ranks of whom are laden with giddy, tinkering socialists. The tendency of environmental activists to align themselves against capitalism earned them the pejorative nickname “watermelons.” While they may be green on the outside, they are decisively red on the inside. The sustainability veneer slipped when an EarthStrike member spoke to Campus Reform about their demand: "The industrial, white supremacist,
imperialist, capitalist cults of Chickfil-A and the Georgia poultry farms as a whole exemplify violence. One of the major poultry suppliers for Chick-fil-A is Koch. Koch targets the most vulnerable people in our immigrant communities to work as employees. Factories are built in low-income communities of color. These jobs are demoralizing, difficult and pollute the environment around them leaving communities in even worse living conditions." Now we’re cooking with gas! Or perhaps peanut oil… The tip o’ the proletarian spear seems to be far less passionate about sustainable packaging than they are about violent, imperialist fried chicken. And Chick-fil-A’s alliance with Koch, charged here with the high crime of bringing jobs to low-income immigrant communities, only makes things worse. I guess. It is a peculiar spin, to say the least, but leftist organizers never shy away from taking potshots at Chick-fil-A. One can only imagine the seething that must result when a YDSA member sees the imperial lunchtime line at the Tate Center double, triple, and quadruple in length. Koch stooges, all of them! In theory, and at the surface level, the alliance of eco-advocates and socialists makes sense. Environmentalism is all about planning. Solutions deemed “eco-friendly” are often inconvenient, not profitable, counterintuitive, and even dangerous for the general public and business owners. It obviously helps when the planners have the flexibility of coercion, e.g., a socialist or communist government. Even the UGA Office of Sustainability’s first act was presented as an ad hoc 10-year plan. A significant reason as to why that plan is failing so spectacularly is that the public SPRING 2019
did not act in the manner that they were supposed to. What eco-socialists might not know, however, is that in countries where socialist planners hold power, the environment has not benefited. In fact, the two ideologies have gone together like oil and water, literally and figuratively. In reference to one of the most impressive feats of environmental atrocity in history, ask the Soviets what happened to the Aral Sea. In Kevin D. Williamson’s 2011 book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, he outlines several instances of environmental neglect, if not intentional ecocide, over the last century in socialist nations. He writes: “Those who have charged that capitalism is the worst thing ever to happen to the earth’s environment have not had a good look at socialism’s record.” From the 1920s to the 60s, the USSR’s economic policy required the rivers that fed the Aral Sea to be diverted in order to serve collectivized farms, thus drying up the sea, the residue of which now poisons everything, and everyone, around it due to chemical runoff. This catastrophe was not even an accident; it was an intended effect of economic planning. In the 1970s and 80s, the Soviets detonated at least twenty nuclear devices, not to test them as weapons, but for mining. Indeed, the USSR destroyed vast forests, created acid rain, allowed exuberant sulfur dioxide emissions, and used its nuclear arsenal for mining ops, all with the encouragement of the government. As Williamson writes, “While American miners were conducting environmental studies and spending billions of dollars on environmental-mitigation studies, their socialist counterparts were literally nuking their way to meeting their production goals.” Considering the Soviets’ freeand-easy dealing with nuclear power, the horrors of Chernobyl suddenly feel a little less shocking. A far more neighborly example of socialism’s colorful relationship with the environment is Pemex, Mexico’s stateowned petroleum company. In 1979, Pemex caused one of the largest oil spills in history, polluting beaches in Mexico and Texas, and wiping out sea life in the Gulf
SPRING 2019
of Mexico. BP (which was also nationalized until the Thatcher privatizations in 1979) gained the ire of Obama-era Democrats and environmentalists after its 2010 oil spill in the Gulf, but they at least had the decency to set aside a fund to pay damage claims. Pemex, meanwhile, used its statesponsored status to avoid paying any compensation claims, citing sovereign immunity. Since that incident, Pemex has continued to proudly carry the banner of nationalized industry. In 1984, a Pemex storage facility exploded, killing 500 people. Two hundred more were killed in another explosion in 1992, 30 in a 2012 explosion, 37 more a year later, 28 in 2016, and 115 this January, just to name a few examples over the years. These examples are important because they refute the myth that it’s only authoritarian socialism that destroys ecosystems. Williamson writes, “Capitalism has its problems, and a cavalier attitude toward the environment is, from time to time, one of them. But the liberal political institutions supported by capitalism—property rights, contracts, arbitration—ensure that no single interest can so dominate the political or economic sphere that they are tempted to, for instance, go marauding through a supposed environmental paradise with dynamite,” (the last bit referencing Omar Bongo’s regime in Gabon). “Socialism, not authoritarianism, is the problem, because it is philosophically disinclined to appreciate the value of the environment.” As the Labor Theory of Value dictates, resources are not valuable until they are made the objects of labor. It should be inferred by the more radical statement made by EarthStrike that they do hold a proximate desire for more control over the private sector, more regulations, and more central planning. Surely they care about saving the environment, but their collaboration with democratic socialism insinuates that they do not believe their environmental goals to be feasible without the heavy hand of government intervention. The question of “Who watches the watchmen?” doesn’t seem to concern them. It also doesn’t seem to have occurred to them that one
of the most effective paths to lowering a nation’s or community’s carbon footprint is innovation through capitalism. One of the climate groups in attendance at the MLC meeting, 100% Athens, claims that they got their start around the time President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. As I wrote nearly two years ago, that agreement was nonbinding, meaningless layers of regulations and political virtue signaling. And even upon its withdrawal, the U.S. is the only Paris signee to have lowered its carbon emissions. It has done so through market innovation, namely via hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” (a true F-word for the left) and the removal of laws against the export of natural gas. The left’s criticisms of fracking have proven to be misleading; some might call it fear-mongering. The documentary Gasland, likely intended to be the Blackfish of fracking, generated a plethora of mythsby-misinformation in true Michael Moore fashion, but some of these criticisms still occupy mainstream thought. Even so, one would think that by now, eco-socialists would have learned from other left-wing boycotters that, of all problematic entities, Chick-fil-A is off-limits. Chick-fil-A has endured nationwide protests of founder Truett Cathy’s samesex marriage comments, attacks from The New Yorker, degrading comments from a certain UGA teaching assistant, and consistently garners more support every time the left bears down on it. It turns out that most of the public doesn’t actually mind that a family-owned business prefers to stick to its values over those of the culture police—one of the beauties of the free market. If I were a gambling man, I’d bet the house that the pathetic “demands” drawn up by these would-be-Bolsheviks are for attention and little else. What better way to pat yourself on the back with absolutely no consequences than to attack a colossal fast-food chain that you know is not going anywhere? V.I. Lenin once said, “You cannot make a revolution with white gloves.” Whether you can make one with non-compostable straws remains to be seen. b
The Arch Conservative / 13
FEATURES
FEATURES
The Lost Generation: Remembering the 50 Million Murdered Since Roe v.Wade By Reed Ferguson
A
s the New York Senate passed a bill that permits abortions up until the very moment of birth, Democrats cheered. “Women’s health! Reproductive freedom! Choice!” they call it. They pride themselves on their so-called care for women. While proclaiming a message of love and acceptance, they boast of their intent to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bars taxpayer dollars from contributing to elective abortions. The party that claims the mantle of compassion sends the unwanted unborn to the slaughterhouse -and I do mean that in the most graphic of terms. While rejecting the notion of judging those women who sit in a dark enough place to allow abortionists to dismember the children they carry in their wombs, they hate the women who march down the National Mall for the lives of those children every January. They exchange the truth for a lie, and they call good “evil,” and evil “good.” This January marked the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that concluded that the Constitution guarantees a woman’s “right to abortion.” As it has done every year since the 1973 decision, the March for Life drew crowds of over 500,000 (while its left-wing counterpart, the Women’s Reed Ferguson is a senior studying economics. She is Executive Editor of The Arch Conservative.
14 / The Arch Conservative
March, could barely swing 10,000). But as pro-life advocates marched in opposition to Roe, New York Democrats celebrated it by passing one of the most extreme and barbaric abortion laws in the United States. On the eve of January 22nd, the New York State Legislature passed the ironically titled Reproductive Health Act. Under prior New York law, the limitation on abortion was set at 24 weeks, with exceptions permitted only in order to preserve the mother’s life. Under the RHA, certified healthcare practitioners-no longer just physicians--can perform abortions if they pass one of three tests: if the child is under 24 weeks old, if the child is not “viable,” or if it will “protect the patient’s life or health” [emphasis added]. Several problems here. First, at 24 weeks, a child is small but fully formed. Second, an “absence of fetal viability” past 24 weeks essentially means nothing other than that the child is already dead, so it’s superfluous. If the child dies naturally, it’s not an abortion; it’s a miscarriage. Any resulting procedure does not cause the death of the child. The bill’s writers included the phrase only to make brutality seem less brutal. Third, a late-term abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother. A C-section is both safer and less arduous than an abortion, and it at least allows the child a chance at survival, rather than ensuring its violent death. I emphasized “health” because nearly every
single news article written about the bill in recent days, except those from conservative outlets, neglects to even mention it. The point of greatest contention that conservatives (and those of a sound mind with a liberal bent) have with the New York law is that the term “health” is not defined. And in a law that clearly purposefully speaks of the “health” of the mother as something distinct from “life” of the mother, the term’s lack of definition should raise an immediate red flag. Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, defined “health” as “all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient.” The word has no objective medical meaning, and it was intentionally written that way. It is an underhanded phrase included in the RHA that effectively allows abortion up until the very moment of natural birth, for any reason, at the discretion of a licensed practitioner. I write with conviction when I speak of abortion not because I wish to come across as angry but because I wish proponents and the politically undecided to understand the gravity of this debate. I will speak to the gruesome nature of abortion procedures, and describe them in detail, not to disturb you but to highlight the barbarism required to both fully understand this debate and still support the RHA. This is not an ordinary debate. This is life and death. SPRING 2019
From the moment of conception, a baby has its own independent genetic code. At day 22, the baby’s heart is pumping its own blood. At week six, brain waves are detectable. By week eight, every organ is in place. At week nine, it has fingernails. At 10, it can turn its head and hiccup. At weeks 11 and 12, the baby is almost fully formed. It can grasp objects in its hand. It can suck its thumb. It has a skeletal structure and nerves. At week 13, the baby’s tiny fingers have fingerprints. During this stage, there are two common abortion methods. According to the leftleaning Guttmacher Institute, abortion pills account for 36 percent of abortions before nine weeks into the pregnancy or an estimated 240,790 per year. Suction dilation and curettage (D&C), a firsttrimester surgical abortion, is the most common abortion procedure. Based on data from Guttmacher, approximately 700,000 babies are killed yearly through this procedure, or nearly 2,000 per day. In a video presentation for Live Action, Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist, describes the procedure: The abortionist uses a suction catheter to suction the baby out of the womb, tearing it apart. Parts of the baby’s body sometimes remain, so the abortionist scrapes the lining of the uterus to remove it. The most common type of abortion during the second trimester (13 to 24 weeks) is dilation and evacuation. Though considered extremely preterm, babies have been born and survived outside of the womb at 21 weeks. By 24 weeks, the baby is typically about nine inches long and two pounds. During this procedure, the child’s skull and bones are too strong and the child is too big to fit through the tube of the suction machine used during a suction D&C procedure, so the abortionist must use a clamp to grasp an arm or leg and rip the child limb from limb. The head, if too big to be pulled out whole, is grasped and crushed. By the third trimester, the child has a functioning nervous system. It has hair, the color of which was determined by its genetic code at the moment of conception. It kicks and stretches. A late-term abortion, 25 weeks and onward, occurs when the child is capable of living outside of the womb if the mother were to go into early labor or have a C-section. The abortionist injects the child with a lethal fluid that
SPRING 2019
induces cardiac arrest. The mother then carries her dead child around inside of her for two or three days before she goes into labor and delivers her dead child. Abortion doesn’t make her not a mother; it just makes her the mother of a dead baby. Under New York law, a medical professional, “acting within his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient’s case.” Someone please explain to me how exactly a doctor can drive a lethal injection into the skull of a fully formed infant “in good faith.” What does that even mean? Enough with the euphemisms. I’m sick of it. If this is “women’s rights,” I hate women’s rights. What exactly does “reproductive freedom” mean? Is that a euphemism for “suctioning brains and dismembered body parts of baby out of mother?” If so, I’m not on board. A baby is a “baby” if it’s wanted and a “fetus” if it’s unwanted. After all, it’s hard to sell the murder of a baby for the sake of convenience, so what is a radical Leftist to do but alter the terminology in an Orwellian fashion? Drawing these lines allows for the brutal extermination of a human life, of millions of human lives, excusing it as “terminating the pregnancy.” Decades of affiliation with the eugenics movement have allowed Leftists to achieve unparalleled mastery in euphemisms, in veiling evil as benign. The follow-up challenge to advocates of so-called “choice” should be, simply, “Choice…to do what?” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s most recent Abortion Surveillance report, New York City saw 544 abortions performed for every 1,000 live births in 2015. That’s one in three babies. Guttmacher estimates that there have been over 50 million abortions in the United States since 1973. The abortion rate peaked in 1984, and though it has been on the decline ever since, the number averages 700,000 per year, roughly 300,000 of which are committed by Planned Parenthood alone. As I write this, 2,235 children have been murdered in their mothers’ wombs today. There is an inadvertent cultural tendency to think about those 50 million murdered babies merely as prevented pregnancies. But that is not the case. They were 50 million people. Fifty-million tiny humans. Fifty-million infants, who would
have grown up watching I Dream of Jeannie reruns, maybe seen the original Star Wars movies in theaters, lived through the Reagan era, and witnessed 9/11. Children, who were sons and daughters, who would have grown to be fathers and mothers and grandfathers and grandmothers. Those 50 million souls are not “prevented pregnancies.” They were lives that once were and now, at the bloodied hands of a culture that tells mothers they don’t need children and fathers they don’t need marriage, are dust. Their tiny mangled bodies sit in medical waste bins or were burned to ash. No one loved them. No one remembers their names. No one but the Lord above. Those 50 million souls are a generation lost. If you consider yourself a moderate, you may read my words, thinking, “That’s a little harsh.” I must confess that I myself have struggled with how to handle this debate. The political pundits I most admire all constantly warn of the dangers of attributing ill motives to one’s political opponents. The goal of debate, after all, should not be simply to win an argument, but to win minds to the truth. That tactic works out fine and dandy when the point of discussion is tax rates, healthcare, the budget, foreign aid, etc. Although there is a moral component to all policy, the level of evil it requires to believe in a progressive tax system is minimal, even miniscule, compared to the level of evil required to support the legalization of the murder of the unborn. I will grant all due benefit of the doubt to those who disagree with me on taxes. But I cannot guarantee the same level of compassion to advocates of abortion, and especially those of the Reproductive Health Act. I don’t like to demonize political opponents. It brings me no great pleasure. I’m not a confrontational person. But in the case of abortion, I cannot stay silent. The Reproductive Health Act is evil -- and not just lukewarm evil. This is not petty theft we are debating; this is not telling a white lie. This is a horrific crime committed against literally the most innocent members of society. It is a despicable evil, a gross evil, and an illegitimate action of the government. May God have mercy on the United States in the coming years. Lord knows we do not deserve it. b
The Arch Conservative / 15
FEATURES
FEATURES Negotiating an Exit
KBO A Doomed Prime Minister, Brexit, and Her Churchillian Resolve By Christopher Lipscomb
KBO
According to urban legend, Sir Winston Churchill began and ended every day of his premiership with the same three words he often ended his phone calls with the acronym “KBO,” meaning “keep buggering on.” Sixty-four years and thirteen prime ministers removed from Churchill’s final government, it is once again easy to imagine the inhabitant of 10 Downing Street stalking the hallways into the morning hours, reminding herself to “KBO.”
The Case to Leave
On May 7, 2015, the United Kingdom of Great Britain held a general election which saw the Conservative Party gain a majority in the House of Commons, with David Cameron remaining prime minister. Shortly thereafter, Cameron’s government announced that they would follow through on a promise that the prime minister had made in 2013, contingent upon winning the election: a referendum would be held across the United Kingdom to determine the future of their relationship with the European Union, with the date eventually being set for June 23, 2016. The UK had never fully bought into the European Union. Although a member since 1973, the UK had never gone along with some of the major aspects of the EU, most notably the Euro, making it one of only nine of 28 member countries to not adopt the Euro as its official currency. When the Great Recession hit in 2008, the British were justified in their decision to stick with the pound; as the financial crisis worsened, the EU adopted contractionary fiscal policies and raised interest rates. By 2011, even as the US economy was beginning the long road to recovery, things were only getting worse in Europe, Christopher Lipscomb is a junior studying international affairs. He is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative. 16 / The Arch Conservative
and the situation in Greece became so untenable that it seemed for a time that the entire Eurozone would collapse under the strain. Additionally, argued the so-called “Brexiteers,” the EU was too burdensome, and EU regulations and procedures severely curtailed efforts to address domestic matters. Writing several months before the referendum, Boris Johnson, then-mayor of London, wrote: “The more the EU does, the less room there is for national decisionmaking…there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists from being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed.” After two decades of battling it out with the EU in Brussels over regulations, many Britons were fed up with the bureaucracy, and wanted to restore lost authority to the UK Parliament. The other major component of the EU that Britain had never bought into was the Schengen Agreement, which largely opened the borders between EU member countries. Despite not being a member of the Schengen Area, Britain was still required, under EU law, to admit unlimited numbers of migrants from other member countries. This had long been a source of concern for some, as it had made it easy for economically depressed migrants from other member countries to enter the UK and find work, thus taking jobs that might have otherwise been held by Britons. And by 2016, another side to the argument had emerged: concerns that terrorists might be able to take advantage of the lax border security within continental Europe to cross the Schengen Area countries and enter the United Kingdom. Having experienced a number of attacks over the previous fifteen years, this argument took hold with a lot of Britons.
The Referendum
On June 23, 2016, over 33 million people went to the polls across the United Kingdom to decide the fate of their relationship with the European Union. This was not the first time that such a referendum had been held: In 1975, only two years after entering the EU, the Referendum on the European Community had resulted in 67.2 percent of voters opting to remain, with only 32.8 percent voting to leave. Having himself campaigned to remain in the EU, Prime Minister Cameron had expected that the new referendum would result in the UK remaining. When the last votes had been tallied, the result sent shockwaves around the world: 51.9 percent had voted to leave the European Union, while 48.1 percent voted to remain. Financial markets all over the world reacted negatively and businesses expressed great uncertainty, with many expressing preference toward remaining and the increased security that would bring. The pound tanked, reaching a thirtyone year low against the dollar within four days of the referendum, though it would recover, and Standard and Poor’s lowered the UK’s sovereign debt credit. While the economic repercussions largely sorted themselves out within days of the referendum, the political fallout took a more lasting tone: Within hours of the results being announced, David Cameron, defeated in the referendum, announced his intention to resign as prime minister, stating, “I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination,” though with the intent of remaining in Parliament as a backbencher. On July 11, 2016, Theresa May was confirmed as the leader of the Conservative Party, and on July 13, Cameron went to Buckingham Palace and tendered his resignation to Queen Elizabeth, with May becoming prime minister later that same day.
SPRING 2019
On June 19, 2017, British Brexit Secretary David Davis met in Brussels with Michel Barnier, the European Council’s chief negotiator for Brexit, with negotiations split into three phases which were set by the remaining twenty-seven members of the EU.First, an agreement on what is known as the “divorce bill,” which pertains to the financial commitments due by the UK to the EU when it leaves. The second phase of negotiations pertained to the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. The final phase of negotiations would resolve questions regarding the border between Northern Ireland, which would be leaving the EU with the rest of the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, which would remain in the EU The negotiations got off to a troubled start, with Davis suggesting that the divorce bill was unnecessary, informing European Commission President JeanClaude Juncker that he could find nothing in the EU’s numerous treaties to support the notion that the UK owed any money to the EU when it left, but Juncker remained adamant that the European Union is “not a golf club,” and that Britain would have to pay its share of existing spending commitments before it left. Estimates of the amount to be paid by the UK reached as high as £100 billion, which was denounced by then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson as “extortionate.” In November 2017, an agreement was reached which would see the United Kingdom pay to cover its EU budget contributions through 2020, as well as various other outstanding commitments, to include pensions for EU officials, for a total sum of £39 billion. Following the divorce bill, the next step was to reach an agreement on the rights of over three million EU citizens living within the United Kingdom, along with over a million British citizens living in EU countries. May hoped that the agreement could be limited to cover only those who arrived in the UK before it leaves the E.U. on March 29, 2019, however she was defeated on this front; the agreement that was reached stipulates that all who arrive in the UK at any point up until the end of the Brexit transition period will enjoy the full rights of EU citizens, including the rights to live, work and study in Britain. The trickiest issue in the negotiations quickly turned out to be that of the Irish border. The border issue is twofold: the first, the so-called “backstop,” would ensure that the Irish border remains open to trade, people, and services in the event of a no-deal Brexit. SPRING 2019
The second, the overall Brexit negotiations as they pertain to Ireland as a member of the EU. The most salient issue for both sides regarding Ireland is the backstop, which neither side can seem to find common ground on. The EU wants to establish a common regulatory area, which would entail a special deal for Northern Ireland; however, May has insisted that there be no regulatory barriers.
“A Bloody Difficult Woman”
The road to Brexit has been fraught with difficulties since the beginning. The negotiating period officially began on March 29, 2017, and on April 19, 2017, a motion put forward by May calling for a snap election was overwhelmingly ratified in the House of Commons. The following two months were spent campaigning, with May seeking to grow her seventeen-seat Conservative majority to gain a stronger position going into the negotiations. May’s plan backfired, with the Conservatives losing thirteen seats, leaving them nine seats shy of the 326 needed for a majority, and May was forced to reach an agreement with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party in order to form a minority government. Consequently, May’s government began negotiations from a weaker position than their original position, which would later come back to haunt them. Negotiating Britain’s withdrawal from the EU was bound to be complicated, challenging, and controversial. However, the negotiations got along rather well, all things considered, at least up until the summer of 2018. Throughout the process, May was challenged by her Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, one of the original Brexiteers, who sniped at her and her approach to Brexit throughout his tenure in her government. On July 6, 2018, the Chequers Agreement was finalized by the Cabinet, setting forth the UK’s goals for economic partnership, security, cooperation, and institutional agreements with the EU post-Brexit. Two days later, Brexit Secretary David Davis resigned over disagreements he had with the agreement. Davis was followed the next day by his parliamentary under-secretary, and more significantly by Boris Johnson, who resigned as Foreign Secretary over the Chequers Agreement. Despite the challenges, May persisted, seemingly unfazed by the opposition coming from all sides, and demonstrating all of the characteristics which led one
long-serving Conservative member of Parliament to describe her as “a bloody difficult woman.”
Deal or No Deal
With negotiations largely complete by November 2018, May scheduled a vote in the House of Commons on the arrangement for December 11, 2018. On December 10, however, May was forced to cancel the vote after resoundingly negative responses in debate, centering mostly on the Irish backstop. The vote was rescheduled for January 15, 2019, and when it was held, May’s plan was decisively defeated, with 432 voting against and only 202 voting in favor. May’s crushing defeat prompted Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition, to set up a vote of no confidence, which was held the next day. Against all odds, May survived, with 325 voting in support of May’s leadership and 306 voting against her. Following the result of the vote, May stated her intent to “continue to work to deliver on the solemn promise to the people of this country to deliver on the result of the referendum and leave the European Union.” For May, along with the entire United Kingdom, the matter now largely comes down to whether there will be an agreement at all, or whether Brexit will occur with no agreement in place with the EU Should such a withdrawal occur, it would likely be devastating to the UK and the EU, and would likely have severe economic ramifications around the world. Unfortunately, as much as most in Britain, the EU, and those around the world would prefer Brexit to happen with a deal, the odds of a no-deal Brexit are increasingly likely as the March 29 withdrawal date draws nearer.
Either Way, Theresa May is Doomed
Regardless of how Brexit plays out in the end, Theresa May is doomed. Through no fault of her own, she has found herself in an impossible situation: As the second female prime minister, she has an incredibly high bar to meet, as the first was set by Margaret Thatcher. If May manages get an agreement approved by Parliament, it will leave many unsatisfied, and no matter how good a deal, the dysfunction which has pervaded much of the process will drag down the reviews of her work, leading to her being viewed as a middling, yet still consequential, prime minister, at best. And should she fail, and Brexit occurs with no deal in place, the assessment of her leadership will be simple: a dismal failure. b The Arch Conservative / 17
FEATURES COLUMNS
FEATURES COLUMNS
The Dark Roots of Abortion Abortion’s Dark Ideological Roots Have Come To Light By Sarah Scherer
T
he news cycle in recent weeks has been filled with grim reports showing just how our fellow Americans view the most innocent members of our society: insignificant and disposable. First, we heard about the recently-passed New York law which allows abortion all the way until birth for any reason involving the “health of the mother.” This terminology encompasses such a wide scope, including “economic and social health,” as to render the limitation useless. Effectively, abortions until birth are legal in New York for anyone who wants one. Then Virginia governor Ralph Northam gave an interview in which he seemed to advocate infanticide, saying: “The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated, if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.” Gov. Northam seemed to suggest that a fully-grown, delivered infant with “severe deformities” or a terminal (non-viable) condition would either be given life support, or left to die as he or she is “kept comfortable.” Such a decision regarding the life of a baby outside the womb would be made at the discretion of the mother and doctors. He prefaced these comments by saying murdering an infant during, or apparently post-labor would only be allowed in the cases of “severe deformities,” or fetal nonviability, thereby categorizing human life in an eerily familiar way. To Gov. Northam, some lives are less valuable and precious than others, less worthy of protection by law, or perhaps better off not existing at all. This way of thinking had a well-known name in the early 20th century: eugenics. In my experience as a pro-life advocate at the University of Georgia, I’ve heard Sarah Scherer is a junior studying international affairs. This is her second contribution to The Arch Conservative.
18 / The Arch Conservative
many justifications for abortion and assisted suicide. I won’t suggest those spouting such justifications have any conception of where their reasoning finds its ideological roots, but nonetheless, the troubling fact is that the mindset of many people when it comes to life issues closely mirrors that of the Nazis. After the New York law and Gov. Northam’s comments, such a comparison can be readily drawn. The three most common justifications I hear for abortion can be summed up as “Cost, Compassion, and Choice”.
Cost
The cost objection comes in two forms. The first and more common one refers to a pregnant woman, say, in college, who doesn’t have the financial security to be able to pay for a newborn. Thankfully, in the pro-life community, there are many people willing to front the cost of a newborn child or even adopt. In this case, I refer the person to pregnancy resource centers and local charities. While the concern of cost preparedness is reasonable, taking a step back, we can observe a troubling ultimatum: Is life only worth protecting if it is affordable? The implication becomes more troubling when spoken about in societal terms, which I have encountered more often when talking to my politically savvy peers. A person once asked me, “Would you rather pay for all the resources for pregnant women and children?” before rattling off a list of items including contraception, formula, childcare, daycare and housing, “or abortion?” Back and forth we went, while she continually emphasized the societal cost of providing welfare for all those lower income families. I paused, thinking of the implication she was making before carefully suggesting, “So, you’d rather low income people kill their children than have them be born into that environment?” She nodded her head and looked around a bit before saying, point-blank, “Yes.”
The New York Reproductive Health Act states that late-term abortion is allowed when, “the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.” That sounds reasonable to a lot of people, but in law, every word has meaning and ambiguity is always purposeful. In an interview with pro-life advocate Lila Rose, former abortionist and lawyer Dr. Anthony Levatino offers a useful insight: “What Roe [v. Wade] didn’t do was define the word ‘health.’ Doe v. Bolton did. It says that ‘health’ … includes a woman’s physical health. Okay, but it didn’t say how badly impaired her physical health had to be, for it to be a problem. It includes her ‘mental health.’ Okay, but again, how bad does her mental health have to be? … It includes her ‘economic health.’ How much money do you have to have to be economically healthy? Not defined. And, if that wasn’t enough, it includes her ‘social health.’ What in blazes does that mean?” The New York law includes purposeful ambiguity so as to make its “limitations” on late-term abortion essentially meaningless. The law allows late-term abortion for practically any reason, including cost. Whether the objection to the pro-life position is the common example of a woman who feels the pressure of providing alone, or the cold, calculated assessment of the societal monetary cost of sustaining human life, there can be no price tag too high to preserve life. Pro-life advocates should make this crystal clear across the board, especially when it comes to babies and other vulnerable members of our society.
“Compassion”
Many object to my mention of adoption by suggesting that a woman should not have to endure the pain of giving up a child, and that is why it is important she be allowed to pre-emptively murder it, instead. Before finding humor in the irony, consider that one of the greatest tragedies surrounding abortion is that within the
SPRING 2019
discourse, such a concern for a woman’s emotional health is not given. “Is it good for a woman to get an abortion?” is apparently not a politically correct question, or something that supposed “pro-woman” feminists have never thought of. Rather, the most radical pro-choice advocates flippantly insist that abortions are no big deal. What a tragedy it is when a woman finds out differently, as many do, evidenced by post-abortive suicide statistics. This leads me to a brief but important aside: According to a 1996 report published in British Medical Journal, Scandinavian women who aborted experienced a suicide rate nearly six times greater than women who delivered their babies. A 2001 study in Archives of Women’s Mental Health found a suicide rate 2.6 times greater for post-abortive American women. To be clear, American women who have had an abortion commit suicide doubly as often as those who haven’t had an abortion. Yet, those who meet me with objections to the pro-life position on the basis of compassion toward mother or child are strangely oblivious to this deeply troubling fact. Many arguments I hear from my peers regarding children born into poverty or with disabilities are not cost-related, but instead suggest that a life in poverty, or a life with some differences or difficulty, is not worth living at all. The fact that it is not the child choosing to end their life in this case is apparently lost on them, and this same argument is significantly harder to combat when it comes to the issue of assisted suicide due to the weight the idea of personal autonomy or “freedom” is given in our culture, even if it means ending your own life. However, our culture doesn’t accept or promote all types of suicide, only assisted suicide in the specific cases of terminal medical conditions, disabilities, or even if the person wishes their family not be burdened by soaring medical costs. The first two justifications, in the case of both assisted suicide and abortion, make one’s happiness or the “easiness” life equivalent with the value of their life. Life isn’t always easy, and this comparison not only justifies and encourages suicide, but murder in the case of the pro-choice argument. Despite its errors, it is a convincing argument, which is probably why the Nazis used it in their propaganda for the Aktion T4 program. This was the first atrocity the Nazis committed, the mass murder of the disabled, or those deemed “incurably sick.” How familiar that is to the justification for abortion and assisted suicide today. The SPRING 2019
Nazis’ administration of “mercy death” on the disabled should not be forgotten when people in our modern society think about where life derives its value. Is the value of human life inherent, or conditional on levels of happiness and hardship?
Choice
The most classic pro-choice argument is in the name: choice. Many modern prochoice advocates have found it’s easier to discount the concessions they might give with regard to abortion. For instance, the pro-choice slogan used to be, “safe, legal, and rare.” Why rare? Today, pro-choice advocates see how the old slogan weakens their stance. Why should abortion be rare if there is nothing wrong with it? Therefore, the sole emphasis of the pro-choice campaign has become the freedom and autonomy of women. The former disagreement between the two sides stemmed from one question: when does a fetus “become a life?” For myself and many pro-lifers, it is a life from conception, for the duration of the entire pregnancy. For others, it is at the point when a heartbeat can be detected. In light of recent laws proposed by many states, and New York’s Reproductive Health Act, a baby in the fetal stage is never a life. With the development of modern medical technology and science, we can see and make sense of the processes of fetal development, and provide detailed images and descriptions of the baby at each stage. Science is on the side of life. These technological developments have also caused the pro-choice side to avoid the topic of life altogether, and insist that choice or freedom is the most important value to uphold. When we take a step back, what does this imply? It implies two things. First, it means that the value of life, or life itself, is determined at the whim of the woman who carries that life in her womb. If she wants the baby, it is a life. If she doesn’t, it is not. That doesn’t make much sense, so few arguing in favor of “choice” will go that far into the explanation of their thought process, but one did in a segment of “Philosophy Time With James Franco and Eliot Michaelson.” Yes, that James Franco. They interviewed Liz Harmon, a professor at Princeton University, who said an early fetus’ “moral status” depends on whether or not it “has a future,” which is determined by the woman. She was widely mocked for this view, which is why more often than not, pro-choice advocates disregard the idea that a fetus is a life altogether, contrary to
scientific evidence. The second implication is that abortion is always a woman’s choice, regardless of the stage of pregnancy, and life or “moral status” is irrelevant. Simply put, dehumanizing fetuses across all stages of pregnancy, with no conditions and no admissions, has become the driving force of the pro-choice campaign. What we are experiencing now with laws, Gov. Northam’s comments, and mainstream pro-choice rhetoric is the effect of the idea that freedom should have value over life. If freedom has value over life, that life in question must be dehumanized to make this stance appear even somewhat permissible to anyone. That is what prochoice advocates are doing, and that is what has been done throughout history to justify other atrocities. How can we counteract this mindset that individual freedom supersedes the right to life? Selfless love is a place to start. It is what guides the activists at Students for Life of UGA, of which I am a part. Considering our role on a college campus, our primary goal is to inform women and their male friends of the resources and support available to pregnant women. Judgment is never to be placed, but patience given to pro-choice advocates and the utmost compassion, sympathy and love to post-abortive women. The issue of abortion is often ignored, with people saying it’s “not their business.” Pro-choice advocates encourage this in keeping with their idea that abortion is simply an individual’s right and personal choice. The truth is, abortion effects everyone. It affects fathers, siblings, parents, and as evidenced by data, it most severely affects the mental health of post-abortive women themselves. Abortion also affects those who have no personal connection to an aborted life or a post-abortive woman, impacting society as a whole. The justifications for abortion devalue human life at its most vulnerable stage. If we permit this, what might we permit toward the disabled, the sick and the poor? Devaluing human life in the womb is not happening in a vacuum. It affects how we perceive, and how we treat other human beings on a day to day basis. Being pro-life is about combating the force in our culture that has torn down the concept of human dignity and the reverence for human life. The most egregious example is human abortion, but it would be incredibly naive to think that abortion is where this cultural devaluation of life will stop. b
The Arch Conservative / 19
SPRING 2019
The Arch Conservative / 20
COLLEGE IS ALREADY EXPENSIVE ENOUGH That’s why college students are invited to sign up for free digital access to The Weekly Standard magazine at weeklystandard.com/free — no credit card needed!
America’s Foremost Political Magazine