I recently tuned into Hardball with Chris Matthews only to hear him bring up the ridiculous notion that someone who is for the death penalty and pro-life exhibit some form of inconsistency. He seemed perplexed that anyone could share those views. To him and many other liberals, that stance is illogical. I see this as yet another example of liberals not living up to their age of reason mantle.

This notion is ridiculous on especially two fronts. In order to understand what I mean, let us approach this from the converse point of view. They, being liberals, justify killing innocent children because pro-lifers have no problem with the death penalty. It is only from the converse perspective that we get at the truth. The first ridiculous point to ponder is, while conservatives admit that the person receiving the death penalty is a human being, liberals do everything they can to deny that the innocent child they are killing is actually a human being. Yet for the sake of this argument, they admit that the fetus is a human being in order to argue that pro-lifers kill people too. I am curious as to whether by their suggestion that therein lays an inconsistency, they are finally admitting that the question of whether life begins at conception is not so difficult to be “above their pay grade.”

Thus, the first point is, though both the innocent child and the person receiving the death penalty are humans, we make a distinction. I must also say that liberals make a distinction. Unfortunately, they make a distinction in the wrong direction. They believe it is more appropriate to kill the innocent and free those who have threatened society—which are why people receive the death penalty in the first place.

In order to arrive at the second point, let us begin by admitting a few thing; both sides are seeking ways to justify their actions. Liberals want to justify killing innocent children by insinuating that their actions are not so bad; even the pro-lifers take lives because they are for the death penalty. Pro-lifers on the other hand are saying, the fact that I am supportive of the death penalty has nothing to do with the issue of abortion. Who is right? Of course we are.

We are willing to say that an innocent life is different from someone who is guilty. What I mean is, someone who has committed a gross crime is deserving of the death penalty. We do not believe that an innocent life and someone who committed a gross crime are deserving of the same treatment. Therein lays the flaw in their logic. If you remove this logic and apply it to another situation the flaw is very evident.

If we remove this logic and apply to our current prison system, what they suggest is that putting an innocent black man in jail for a crime is the same as jailing the actual white criminal. And in a time and age when the black race is considered unwanted –which is usually the attitude to children who are aborted—it is better to jail the black man so the case can be closed and permit the white criminal to go free.

I know that I used an unrelated issue to make the point; however, the point remains. To assert that there is no distinction between innocence and a vile individual who has threatened society is unacceptable. If liberal believe that killing an innocent child is justified because we conservatives believe in the death penalty, I dare them to apply their reasoning to our prison system. Let me hear them say that it doesn’t matter if the black man sitting in jail actually committed the crime; he probably would have committed a crime anyways. It is this kind of flawed thinking that causes people to oppose the killing of vile criminals but support the killing of innocent lives.

For those who would make the argument that innocent people receive the death penalty, it only suggests the furtherance of this logic. The logic that it really doesn’t matter if an innocent person dies in the place of the criminal. The solution then is not the abolition of the death penalty, rather a proper administering of justice. Our justice system has too many career-type lawyers who are more concerned with convictions than with justice. When a lawyer knows that his or her client committed a crime; instead of turning them in, they fight to set them free. In setting the criminal free we imprison the innocent.

Therefore, despite the problems in our justice system, the second ridiculous aspect of this issue is the fact that differences do exist and if death is deserving, distinctions between innocent and guilty must be made and it is imperative that we support and preserve innocence. If I may, pro-life is a phrase used to urge people to preserve innocent life. It does not imply that those who threaten the lives of others must be kept alive.

We all at times need a reminder of what really matters. FocusOnTheFamily.org offered us that reminder this weekend with their ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mom. If you haven’t seen it, check it out.

As usual, the liberal abortionist caused a skunk prior to seeing the ad. They heard FocusOnTheFamily and they got bent out of shape. They accused CBS of all kinds of vile things all because they though the ad would have been overtly anti-abortion.

As I listened to the outrage, I questioned “why the outrage?’ I thought liberals agreed that less abortion was preferred to more abortion. I thought that choice meant choice; not that you had to have an abortion.

Tebow’s mom had a choice, she was not forced to decide one way or the other. And with that choice, she choose life. It bothers me that the intellectual left believes that making a choice contrary to what they prefer is not a choice. They sound all too familiar to FORD Motor Company in times past when they said, “You can have any color car you want, as long as it is black.”

That attitude all too often is indicative of the supposed pro-choicers. They talk the talk of pro-choice but if a woman chooses life, they are indignant. There is no need to be indignant. Just accept it.

Further, get with the program. It seems that the left wing radicals that make up the Democrat party no long understand what the movement’s intent was. It was not to promote the killing of innocent children, but to permit women who could not afford (in her estimations) to bring a child into this world, to have the opportunity available to her to abort the pregnancy. It was a decision that was not arrived at lightly, as president Obama puts it. Unfortunately, the radical fringe left is all about killing innocent children. That was not what the movement was intended to do.

Speaking of Obama, I am reminded of his Notre Dame Speech where he agrees with me that abortion must be reduced, not increased. In his speech he said “That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let’s make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.” FocusOnTheFamily.org along with Tim Tebow were only doing the “work(ing) together” that the president urged us to in reducing-not increasing-the number of abortions.

I also am reminded of the Clinton’s policy to make “abortion safe, legal and rare.”

The fact of the matter is, FocusOnTheFamily, President Obama, the Clintons, Tim Tebow and his mom, and me believe that the objective is less abortion, not more. We understand that choosing life is also a choice. That is what we believe. What do you radicals believe?

The recent uproar over a quote by Harry Reid in the book, Game Change, where he is quotes as saying that Obama could become president because he is “light-skinned with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” reveals the predicament that we are in as a nation. It reveals our lack of maturity due to bigotry by the left and it shows the damage done to our society by these liberals.

We as conservatives have long realized that the charge of racism by liberals was and always will be a tactic to discredit and ridicule their political opponents. We have always found it amusing while at the same time saddened, that the Democrat party, which was the party of segregation and Jim Crow, have the audacity to work tirelessly to make it seem that the Dixie-crat (from Democrat) was rather the Dixie-can (from Republican). What we never considered was the effect this bigotry would have on our society. In the words of Jeremiah Wright, the chickens have come home to roost.

Due to bigotry and political correctness, the American people have become too ignorant to know the difference between comments that are racial from those that are racist or for fear of reflecting a hint of racism, they have deemed every comment with the tinge of race as racist without even taking the time to think about it.

Therefore, I will try to return some clarity and sanity by defining the two. A racist comment is one that deals with the hatred, the dislike, the disgust and prejudice for a certain races based on certain beliefs. Whereas, a racial comment deals with issues pertaining to, reflective of, and characteristic of a certain race. It is not mean-spirited, it is not degrading, it is simply a reflection of an obvious aspect of a certain race. Harry Reid’s comments were racial not racist. So-called Uncle Tom’s like Collin Powell and Pres. Barack Obama have always gotten an edge. Reid’s comment, from a black person’s perspective only reflected the obvious.

I often hear black liberals complain and demand that we need to have a discussion on race. The fact of the matter is, we have been talking excessively about race but we have said absolutely nothing. This is because black liberals have joined with white leftists in condemning and ridiculing conservatives who makes statements that are racial, as being racist for the expressed purpose of wrecking their political and public careers. These liberals have repeatedly distorted every racial comment made by conservatives as racist, and have worked relentlessly for that purpose. As a result, the American people don’t know the difference between a racist or a racial comment and they shun all public discourse on the matter. How are we supposed to have a conversation about race when those that a conversation benefits, African-Americans, are eager to condemned? As an individual, I accept racial comments and statements as part of the debate because only when we are able to differentiate between the two and accept the differenced will this country ever be able to have a meaningful discussion on race.

We as Americans must reject the racial bigots who are responsible for preventing this country from having a substantive discussion on race. They obviously put their liberalism and leftist tactics to silence and discredit their opponents before their race and could care less if this country’s racial wounds are healed. The only thing they care about is making disparaging statements against their political opponents. More importantly, when we are led astray by this bigotry we ignore legitimate racism. In fact, because everything is deemed racist, the charge loses its impact when real racism emerges. We cannot continue this way. If it wasn’t for the distortion of what is and isn’t racist merely for political advantage, we as Americans would know the difference between the two. Unfortunately, we don’t.

From an intellectual perspective, there is nothing racist about what Harry Reid said but because liberals have set this ridiculous standard, I can see why republicans believe it is more easier to hold democrats accountable to their own standard rather than inform and change the thinking of the American people.

Regarding Harry Reid, it is flawed and short-sighted thinking for Republicans to demand his resignation. Why would Republicans want him to resign when we know that with the inability of the American public to differentiate between a racial comment and racist comment they will consider this a racist comment and will vote him out of office? Harry should stay put and face the fire. Not for his comments, but for his record.