The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Tim Walz Lies About Everything

Posted on | August 23, 2024 | Comments Off on Tim Walz Lies About Everything

Before we talk about Tim Walz’s latest “gaffe” (which is what the media call it when a Democrat gets caught lying) can we first talk about the underlying issue? Human reproduction is not complicated, and requires no medical assistance. Generations of our ancestors, stretching back to the dawn of history, successfully reproduced without any more help than could be obtained with a bottle of wine to set the mood. To this day, getting pregnant remains so simple that it is easily accomplished by 10th-graders in the backseat of a Dodge. So when you hear Democrats talk about “reproductive health,” you know that some kind of deception is being practiced. “Reproductive health” is usually just liberal code-speak for abortion, except when it’s about handing out contraceptives to minors at taxpayer expense (and without parental consent), but in general, “reproductive health” is a misleading euphemism in that what is really being discussed is preventing the normal, healthy function of the reproductive system. (By the way, as a father of six myself, I’d be happy to explain “the normal, healthy function” to anyone who doesn’t understand it, but you’ll have to pay me for that educational seminar.)

All of this is preamble to the abnormal and unhealthy governor of Minnesota and his wife, who apparently are on the losing side of the Darwinian competition, and thus required medical assistance to accomplish what 10th-graders so easily do in the backseat of a Dodge.

Do I mean to scoff at the unfortunate experiences of so many people who experience similar difficulties? No, but I’m not the one trying to turn this whole subject into an agenda in a presidential campaign. It’s Democrats who are doing that, and then double-dog-daring us to criticize their policies, so they can then turn around and accuse us of trying to impose some kind of Handmaid’s Tale authoritarian dystopia on the nation. When you decide to turn your personal narrative into a political argument, you thereby invite scrutiny of the details of your life and if, in the resulting discussion, other people’s feelings get hurt — whose fault is that? Not mine. So spare me your crybaby antics, please.

In 1994, then 30-year-old Tim Walz married then-27-year-old Gwen Whipple. “The Walzes underwent fertility treatment at Mayo Clinic for seven years before their children were born in 2001 and 2006,” Wikipedia tells us, implying that as soon as they got married, they went directly from the wedding to the Mayo Clinic. What was the underlying medical problem? Was Tim suffering from a low sperm count? Was there something wrong with Gwen’s fallopian tubes? But excuse my Calvinistic perspective in saying that, if you can’t get pregnant without seven years of treatment at the Mayo Clinic, you might want to contemplate the possibility that parenthood is not part of God’s will for your life.

See what I mean about turning personal narratives into political agendas? I’m not the one who decided that America should have a “national conversation” about the pros and cons of medical interventions in the reproductive process, requiring me to ask questions about the specific details of the Walz’s personal problems. Democrats initiated this discussion with the intent of exploiting it for political advantage, and imagine they can decide the exact terrain on which the resulting battle should be fought, but here I’ll invoke Sherman’s famous reply to Hood: “Talk thus to the marines, but not to me.” Those who choose to inaugurate conflict are entirely responsible for the consequences, and have no right to impose limitations upon those they have attacked.

Tim Walz tried to turn his personal problems into a political attack on Republicans, claiming that somehow Donald Trump would shut down the Mayo Clinic or whatever, and I’m not going to be limited in how I respond. You see, there’s two ways to look at this “reproductive health” thing — science or religion — and either of those perspectives raises profound questions. Let’s start with the scientific view.

According to liberals, The Science™ is Darwinian evolution. Anyone who doubts the evolution narrative is denounced as a dimwitted bigot, but what does Darwinism suggest about “assisted reproductive technology”?

We are encouraged to believe that evolution is synonmous with progress — the species literally improving, becoming better through “survival of the fittest” — which is why those of us who are skeptical of Darwinism are regarded as such reactionaries, since we are portrayed as opponents of this evolution-as-progress scheme. But proponents of The Science™ are remarkably inconsistent in their interpretations of what “progress” should mean. It would seem self-evident, for example, that reproductive failure in any organism is a sort of evolutionary verdict, and yet advocates of The Science™ neverthless defend “assisted reproductive technology” as an evasion of this verdict. Unable to conceive offspring by natural means — disqualified from the “survival of the fittest” — the genetic misfits are provided with artificial meddling to enable them to pass along their bad genes, producing another generation of maladapted mutants.

Undoubtedly, some people’s feelings would be hurt by such a blunt description of what The Science™ of Darwinism implies in regard to infertility, and the medical efforts to treat infertility through IVF (in vitro fertilization) and other such interventions. If your feelings are hurt, however, don’t blame me, blame Tim Walz, who tried to score political points by claiming his wife got IVF (she didn’t, she got intrauterine insemination, which is something else), a lie intended to leverage his personal narrative in accusing Republicans of trying to ban IVF.

“Those bigots are against PROGRESS!”

Perhaps you see why I take General Sherman’s attitude toward these miscreants — if you start a war with me, don’t complain about how I choose to finish the war. We’re at the “March to the Sea” phase now.

Having made the Darwinian argument against “assisted reproductive technology” (i.e., allowing defective people to propogate their inferior genes), I’ll remind readers that I have never believed in Darwinism. Instead, I’m a biblical fundamentalist of Calvinist inclination, and as such, believe in the ultimate sovereignty of God. We pray for God’s blessings, and pray also to escape God’s curses.

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)

That’s God’s promise, and also His warning. Should we depart from our faith, and fail to “choose life,” we are responsible for the consequences, which are clearly predicted — the alternative to life is death.

We may wish to think we are no longer judged by the law which Jehovah imparted to a nomadic tribe of former Egyptian slaves, but here’s the thing: If God actually does exist, our unbelief doesn’t alter that fact; His existence is not dependent upon our belief, and He remains sovereign despite our impudent infidelity. God’s judgment may be witheld, and our destruction thus delayed, for reasons which we cannot fathom, as the divine will is beyond our comprehension. But we are, at all times, “sinners in the hands of an angry God,” as Jonathan Edwards famously preached, and ought to be cognizant of and grateful for God’s mercy.

There are those — even some Christians — who think Christianity is all about the afterlife, trying to enter Heaven or avoid Hell, as if God never rewards or punishes behavior in the here and now, as if the court of divine justice has been adjourned until Judgment Day. Well, just who do you think God is, anyway?

“The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.”
— Exodus 34:6-7 (KJV)

Thus spake God to Moses, and these verses have attracted widespread attention for the idea of “generational curses,” in which we may suffer for the wrondoing of our ancestors, or that our own iniquity may visit a curse upon our descendants. Some deceivers (wolves in sheep’s clothing) have used this to exploit the superstitions of the ignorant, so that you have certain preachers who tell their flocks that they can achieve freedom from a “generational curse” for a fee, more or less — the suggestion that generosity in offerings will purchase the desired result.

My dear brothers and sisters, that’s not how it works.

If it is the case that “the iniquity of the fathers” should be the cause of our sufferings, then we ought to accept the divine chastisement gratefully. Should it appear to us that we are somehow cursed, that misfortune haunts our footsteps, it is vain, foolish and sinful to imagine that God is not righteous in His judgment. If God has ordained our fate, who are we to say that we somehow deserve better than the portion allotted to us? However great our suffering may be, shouldn’t we consider the possibility that it could be worse, and therefore be thankful for God’s mercy?

Well, I leave aside that sermon, and let the reader find his own conclusion, but my point is, you cannot cheat God. And that is what seems to me to be involved with “assisted reproductive technology.”

As a Christian, I view children as a blessing from God, and am grateful for my numerous progeny — a blessing I owe to grace, rather than to any merit I may claim, for I am surely nothing but a wretched sinner. When I behold those who have been less favored by God in such matters, it gives me pause, because how is it that somehow God judged me worthy of such a blessing, which He has denied to others who, by all appearances, are much better people than I am? Whatever the explanation, I thank God that I didn’t need seven years of treatment at the Mayo Clinic.

Perhaps there are those who, researching Tim Walz’s background, will point to the fact that he is a lapsed Catholic, now affiliated with the “woke” ECLA, and conclude that God is wise in all His judgments. And I further suppose that many readers, whether religious or secular, will look at how Tim Walz lied about the treatment he and his wife got at the Mayo Clinic, and conclude that Walz’s word simply cannot be trusted.

We are approaching what Ronald Reagan once famously called “A Time for Choosing,” Oherwise nobody would care about the formerly obscure governor of Minnesota who, by his attempted deception, has provoked a public discussion of “assisted reproductive technology” that is long overdue. Walz’s effort to score political points by falsely accusing Republicans of seeking to ban IVF should direct our attention to the criticism of such procedures as unethical — a criticism I’m sure most Americans have never considered. Contemplate what Michael Crichton was trying to tell us in his novel Jurassic Park, with the line from Dr. Ian Malcolm: “God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates Man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs . . .”

You cannot cheat God. Mankind’s efforts to evade the divine will are foolish and sinful, and the consequences are always bad.



 

Shop Electronics at Amazon

Save on Groceries and Everyday Essentials

Shop Amazon Basics

Office & School Supplies

Category: Family, Religion, Science, Tim Walz

Comments

Comments are closed.