Commentator Tomi Lahren has again spoken out against those who seek to defend the right to life of unborn babies.  In a basic rant of why she got canned from The Blaze, Lahren let go against the overturn of Roe v. Wade, declaring herself as "pro-life" while claiming it would be a "losing" effort to do that, but championed pushing for the economy.

To be honest, it sounded very Bill Clinton-esque.  Take a listen to what she had to say and I'll explain why she is wrong, dead wrong.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Tomi thinks she is taking some sort of big stand as evidenced by her opening line, "I'm going to say something my fellow conservatives and Trump supporters may not like, but I must be true to my beliefs whatever the party line."

Well, I can agree that we must be true, but only to the truth, not to lies that have been peddled to us, which is something Ms. Lahren has bought into, and therefore, needs to change her "beliefs."

"Pressing for a decision to overturn Roe v. Wade would be a huge mistake," she pontificated, as though she can see into the future.  "Yes, the new high court vacancy is a huge opportunity for conservative values and principles.  I get it."

Apparently, she doesn't get it and that will become clear in a moment.

"I understand the passion behind the pro-life movement, but to use conservatives newfound power and pull to challenge that according to a new Quinnipiac poll, most Americans support, would be a mistake," says Lahren.

OK, first off, we are not mob rule nor a democracy but a republic, so for Ms. Lahren's information polling means squat when it comes to law.  Second, she doesn't understand the passion of those who wish to abolish abortion or she would understand that is based not only in law, but in our founder's declaration that our rights come from our Creator and among those are the right to life!

Second, isn't she talking out of both sides of her mouth when she said, "Yes, the new high court vacancy is a huge opportunity for conservative values and principles," but then chiding those who actually want to advance those things and return us to our foundations, the law of God?  Why yes, yes she is.

You will begin to see her double-mindedness start to appear shortly if you have not already seen it.

However, instead of standing on the moral foundation of the law, Lahren wants to present to you alleged goodies.  She points to how Trump is "winning" on the "economy, foreign policy and tax reform."

While I don't question some of that, those things are nothing compared to the holocaust of 60 million dead Americans whose blood has run in our streets due to an unlawful ruling by the Supreme Court fifty years ago.

She went on to say that the things she mentioned benefitted all Americans regardless of "religion or social belief."  She thinks that focusing on such things and immigration would cause "us" to "sail into 2020 with all three branches in our control.

"That's how we get things done for the American people," she said, wagging her finger at the audience.  "That's how we win."

Excuse me, but I don't know who she is referencing in the "we" statement.  Does she mean Republicans?  I think she does.  I'll remind her that Republicans have been in control of all three branches for the past year and a half.  Nothing has been done on immigration.  Obamacare is still in place.  Babies are still being murdered under the "legal" but not lawful protection of the state because of Roe v. Wade.

We are continuing to amass an incredible amount of debt.

President Donald Trump pledged to eliminate the national debt “over a period of eight years.”  When he took office in 2017, the national debt was $19.9 trillion.  Today, it is over $21.2 trillion and climbing.  Though he made some changes that have affected some aspects of spending, he has gone right along with all sort of unconstitutional spending without even putting up a fight, but rather justifying it by appealing to patriots about it being for "military."  And this wasn't just with the omnibus bill, he's been doing it every step of the way with continuing resolutions, just like Obama did.

Furthermore, what about the American people who are being beheaded, and pulled apart limb from limb from their mother's womb, Ms. Lahren?  Do they matter at all?  Or is it just about money?  Oh wait, yep, it's all about money because that's pretty much all she spoke about: "economy, foreign policy and tax reform." She forgot the words of the Declaration of Independence that "to secure these rightsgovernments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Government does not exist to steal from people under the guise of "taxes" nor to "build the economy."  While our federal government was created to engage in some foreign policy, even that was limited by the Constitution.

Government exists for two reasons as the ministers of God (Romans 13:1-5):  To protect the rights of the people by dealing justly with those who break the law.  They are not to be a terror to those who do good, but to those who do evil, but Ms. Lahren doesn't want them to be a terror to those that do evil when it comes to abortion.  Nope, she wants the hired hitmen of abortion agencies to be protected for murdering countless babies and even killing mothers because, after all there really is no "safe and legal abortion."

How is any of this "winning"?  No, Ms. Lahren, this is called losing.  The team your cheering for and that you wear their jersey may be winning, but this is not winning.

She wants to deal with sanctuary cities and push for voter ID laws claiming that we lose when we go after "social issues."

She appealed to Neil Gorsuch saying he was not interested in overturning Roe v. Wade and proceeded to talk about precedent, something that shouldn't be discussed when the issue is life.  Sadly, she thinks just like a progressive here, and just like many judges, including Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  These men are more interested in case law than they are Constitutional law, which is why we have the problems we have today in the "justice system."  No one is trained in constitutional law anymore.

The right to life is non-negotiable.  She wants to talk precedent but she forgets that for hundreds of years in both the US and the Western world, the premeditated taking of a life was considered murder.

She claims you have to have "strong grounds" for overturning a previous precedent.  No, you really don't, but I'd say the issue is life and that's a pretty strong ground to stand on.

Furthermore, this is not merely a "social" issue.  It's a moral issue for sure, but it's an economic issue, just like redefining marriage is not only a moral issue but has economic implications.  When you murder an entire generation or two of your fellow man, how do you think society recovers from that?  They don't, but don't bother Ms. Lahren with those facts.  don't bother her with a real thriving economy that would have flourished had 60 million Americans been protected under the law rather than giving in to the lustful desires of men and women who just didn't want the responsibility of raising a child, and for the majority of them it was for convenience.

She then went on to say, "Do we really want to fight for this?  Alienate Democrats, moderates and libertarians all to lose in the end anyway?  That's a risk I don't think is worth taking."

Well, of course, it's not a risk she thinks is worth taking.  It's not her head being severed or her arms being pulled off or her head being crushed or her neck being stabbed, is it?  Nope.  And since when are we interested in the mob rule mentality, Ms. Lahren.  We're supposed to be ruled by law.  Roe v. Wade is not law because only Congress has the power to legislate, according to the Constitution, and to write such a law to protect the murder of the unborn would be unlawful.

Her utter undoing is the fact that she says that she is saying what she is saying because she "would choose life."  OK then, what does that make the other choice, Ms. Lahren?  Death?  If death, is it premeditated?  Yes, it is.  And what would your outcry be for the 18-year-old girl who has the baby in the bathroom during prom during your little talking points?  One would think she would be irate, and say she should be punished according to... an opinion poll?  According to getting along with Communists and other people in America?  No, according to the law!  So, why is she not consistent here?  Indoctrination, plain and simple.

"It's not the government's place to dictate," Lahren said. "This isn't a black and white issue."

Well, I agree, they aren't supposed to dictate, but aren't they making certain dictations about say taxes?  Aren't they doing it when is comes to spending money?  Aren't they doing it when it comes to determining what is morally acceptable and punishing those who violate the law?  Again, be consistent.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would not be dictating a mother couldn't make a choice to murder her unborn baby any more than it would dictate the boys at Columbine could go into the school and murder their fellow students.  They could still make that choice, but they would have to face the consequences as with any crime.  For those not catching on, she's speaking progressive here, not conservative and that's because she is not grounded in the law.

It's a pretty black and white issue, Tomi.  You said you would choose "life."  That word has meaning and you know it does.  What then is the other "choice"?  Hmmmm?  It's death, it's murder.  It can be nothing else, but don't expect her to have me on her show to challenge her on any of this.

While I agree that you try to persuade a woman in a situation where she might feel helpless or vulnerable and want to murder her unborn baby is to do it compassionately and with love, I don't see that keeping abortion legal through government regulation (see the hypocrisy?) demonstrates compassion or love for either mother or child.  In fact, it demonstrates a hatred for them, and failing to prosecute abortion doctors for those murders only puts more lives, both mothers and children, at risk.

So, while Tomi tells you she is for life and no government regulations, the opposite is true.  She's just fine regulating abortion, protecting the hired hitmen at the murder mills and in the end, allowing the holocaust of the unborn to continue while championing that tax reform, the economy and foreign policy are signs of "winning."

Oh, how easily people are swayed by Fox's eye candy.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.