Just about everyone knows that Democrats have a real passion for abortion. In fact, few things make them prouder to be an American than to catch sight of an abortion clinic. Of course, most never come and outright say they support abortion. No. They are pro-choice. That is until Uncle Joe let the cat out of the bag.

Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.  The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people.  Not sustainable.

Thank you for those encouraging words, Uncle Joe. We feel secure knowing you are representing all of us abroad.

Joe understands? Joe refuses to second guess? What exactly does he understand about forced abortions? The trauma that is inflicted upon innocent mothers as she is forced to kill off her own flesh and blood against her will? I would like to know how any of this is justified and would encourage Joe to come forward and further explain his sympathies with the CCP of China’s barbaric and murderous policies.

Speaking of something “not sustainable” below are the effects of China’s one-child policy. I wrote this at Big Peace last week. The subject is how China’s one-child policy is affecting military readiness. But more to the point here is how it has affected society.

China instituted the one-child policy in 1979 under the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping in order to control China’s exploding population rate. Then China was largely rural with a large peasantry class. That still remains the case outside of China’s major commercial cities. The policy was passed as a temporary measure but is still a fixture for roughly 40% of married couples, 30 years later. To mention that it has affected society goes without saying. Parents are forced to be selective about births. As a result, infant girls are aborted, abandoned, or go unregistered. Infant boys are overwhelmingly chosen over girls and have caused an unnatural demographic shift in the male female ratio. (I believe the natural ratio is 104:100?) This has government planning authorities worried.

The end result is a startling gender imbalance, measured by the 2010 census to be 118 boys born for every 100 girls. Back in 1982 the ratio was 108:100, rising to 111:100 in 1990 and 116:100 in 2000. (Investor Spot)

Unlike many veterans, I have been fortunate not to see combat. I was “officially” shot at only once; during the Los Angeles riots in 1992 (well, there was that time in Lebanon, but that wasn’t official; and I was carjacked in 1988 by Panamanian paramilitaries).

When the members of the armed forces of the United States of America fight, they do so not just for their colleagues in uniform next to them – virtually every soldier in history has done that – they do so not for king or country – they fight to preserve a document, the Constitution. In that, the United States Armed forces have become the greatest force for good, for freedom, that the world has ever seen because the Constitution exists to make a reality out of the promise of the Declaration of Independence to secure our “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

As a lawmaker and a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army retired Reserve, I have sworn two oaths to “support and defend the Constitution.” It’s an obligation I take seriously. It’s one of the reasons why I do what I can with the power of my office to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” when people ask for my assistance.

This last summer, I was approached by family members of four women wrongly imprisoned in the Peoples Republic of China for their religious beliefs. These family members, all U.S. citizens or resident aliens, went to their U.S. and state representatives, including Senator Barbara Boxer’s office, asking for help. They were turned away by most with the notable exceptions of Cong. Duncan Hunter, Assemblyman Anderson, and Sen. Ducheny.  Virtually no one would assist them by using the moral power of their office to move the Chinese authorities. By the time they came to my office in desperation, they were in tears. At least one woman, Jinhua Ma, the mother of a California resident, had been held for a year without charges in a “Laogai” – a Chinese forced “Reeducation Through Labor” camp.

I agreed to lend the services of my office to help these California families. We sent letters to the Chinese Ambassador, the Consul General, the Mayor and Police Chief of Shanghai, and others. I wrote about the case (and was roundly criticized by some for “wasting” my time when there were more important things to worry about in California).

A few weeks after we sent the letters, we found out that the Chinese legal system had filed formal charges against the four. The sleep deprivation tactics ceased and treatment improved. Then, in September, came welcome news, Jinhua Ma, unjustly-held for a year in hard labor, was released. I was moved to tears at the thought of relief that must have swept over Jinhua Ma’s family.

Last night I spoke to the UC San Diego College Republicans. It was my 201st campaign event since declaring for office. Unknown to me, a young San Diego woman by the name of Joanna Wang was in the audience. Near the end of my talk, she rose to read a statement. She thanked me for getting her mother out of prison in China. It was a powerful moment as I struggled to keep my composure. Joanna Wang’s mother is Jinhua Ma and Jinhua Ma now breathes free air.

This is why I serve.