Baby Killers

Trump Administration mandated that taxpayer-funded family planning clinics immediately stop referring women for abortions, maintain separate finances from facilities that provide abortions, and that both kinds of facilities not be under the same roof.

“Thou shalt not kill.” Exodus 20:13

”…I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live:”Deuteronomy 30:19

Remember good ole boy Johnny Edwards—actually North Carolina Democrat Senator John Edwards (1998-2012), VP candidate in 2004, and presidential candidate in 2008? Edwards is hard to forget because he burst upon the national stage as the golden-tongued lawyer who was famous for defending the rights of the unborn.

According to writer Douglas Johnson in National Review, “in 1985, John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl. In his closing argument to the jury, Edwards conveyed what the unborn child, Jennifer Campbell, purportedly had been feeling hour-by-hour as her distress grew.”

“She speaks to you through me,” Edwards told the jury. “And I have to tell you right now—I didn’t plan to talk about this—right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She’s inside me, and she’s talking to you.”

Edwards won that lawsuit and went on to file at least 20 similar lawsuits in the years following, achieving verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients.

Johnson writes that 13 years after the Jennifer Campbell lawsuit, Edwards was elected to the U.S. Senate from North Carolina, but “…somewhere along the line, John Edwards lost his ability to hear the voices of unborn victims.”

Yep…that’s what happens when the poohbahs of the Democrat Party dictate that anyone who wants “in” to their baby-killer cabal get rid of that empathic feel-for-the-baby stuff and embrace their kill-‘em-in-the-womb mantra. And Mr. Smoothie did just that—became deaf to the pain of in-utero infants and on-board with the baby killers.


It is chillingly accurate to say of the former pretty-boy senatornot to mention his affair with Rielle Hunter and the baby girl they had while his wife was dying of breast cancer—that he was a morbid harbinger of his fellow Democrats’ devolution.

While abortion was always their Holy Grail—a virtual litmus test for admittance into the world of their perverse values—even Mr. Edwards and his flexible morality could not have imagined that in January of 2019, the entire Democrat New York State legislature would give a standing ovation to the passage of a law that sanctioned abortion up until the very moment of birth!

That’s right, a law that gave the right to a mother—exhausted by labor and in pain—to decide to snuff out the life of her fully-developed, perfectly intact full-term baby.

Did these Democrats recoil at the very idea of this kind of savagery? Did they weep or wring their hands at the barbarity of it all? Did they stage a protest against the infanticide that is forbidden in both Hebrew and Christian bibles?

No—they stood up and applauded!

Writer Wesley Smith, in Infanticide Makes a Comeback, recalls a recent Senate bill—the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”—that requires any baby who survives an abortion to be treated with “the same degree of professional skill and care as [would be given] to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” And the bill also would have outlawed infanticide.

Guess who objected to these eminently reasonable and humane guidelines in February of this year? None other than 44 out of 47 Senate Democrats who blocked the Senate from voting on this bill, including presidential wannabes Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren!


Since Roe v Wade was passed in January 1973, over 61 million babies have been killed—legally.

To underscore the kind of vibrant lives of each of these babies—even at 12 weeks—and who these “pro-choice” candidates want to continue to snuff out, here is the clearest MRI of a pregnancy every recorded—only 44 seconds:

Every Democrat candidate for president has seen this or a similar film, and is also aware of the following irrefutable fact: Unborn babies feel! This is the conclusion of one of many studies—this one from Heidelberg psychotherapist Ludwig Janus, reported in February of this year.

“Babies in utero are happy…angry….fearful…and they like music,” Janus concluded. By eight weeks, the fetus has developed a sense of touch, by 13 weeks taste, at 17 weeks hearing, at 25 weeks sight, the miracles go on.

But none of this matters to people who think that the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy is worthy of infanticide.

And to think—one of these moral paragons wants your vote! Who will they target next—your disabled child, your elderly parent, your beloved pet?


Clearly dazzled by the beauty of the NY State infanticide law, the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam—a pediatric neurologist no less!—decided to go one better. Within days of the NY decision, he announced that, in his state, mothers whose babies survived abortion would and should have the right to kill their babies after they’re born.

“If a mother is in labor,” Gov. Northam said, “I can tell you exactly what would happen. 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 physicians and the mother.”

Disgusted yet? It gets worse.


If you had a measured conversation with a Democrat—in strict privacy and away from cell phones, microphones and cameras—and asked if he or she actually liked:

  • High taxes
  • Regulations that require months or years simply to add a room to one’s home
  • A weakened military
  • Billions spent on Sanctuary Cities to afford illegal aliens free housing, food, healthcare, education, on and on

All of them would tell you a resounding NO!

But if you followed up and asked, then how on earth could you vote Democrat? Reflexively, they would answer: ABORTION!

According to Sebastian Gorka, former Deputy Asst. to President Trump, in his recent article “Death and the Democrats”, “our existence as free men and women starts not with the right of association, or a free press, or freedom of conscience, or the right to keep and bear arms. Everything begins with the right to life. But in 2019—the Democrat Party “has quite literally become the political party of death.”

Gorka documents the grisly statistics: “The U.S. abortion industry that Planned Parenthood champions kills at least 600,000 babies in utero each year. For perspective, the 70,000 plus deaths last year from opioid overdoses is deemed to be a national crisis with federal and state programs created to staunch the flow of drugs into our nations and prevent needless loss of life.

“But more than eight times that number are killed as a matter of choice, not addiction or accident, and the Left celebrates it and wants more….the arch-eugenicist Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler would be most proud.”


In fact, writer Patricia McCarthy reminds us that Sanger “founded Planned Parenthood to purposefully dispose of black babies—and the Democrat Party has at last embraced her cause openly and without shame.”

Pro-life advocates remind us that abortions are not only immoral but are racist, in effect decimating the black population.

According to Right to Life of Michigan:

  • More than 19 million black babies have been aborted since 1973
  • Black women have a significantly higher abortion rate than whites and Hispanics.
  • 36.0% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2014 were performed on black women, yet only about

13.3% of the total population is black

And Professor William D. Rubinstein of the University of Wales posits in his stunning article, “Legalized Abortion and the Triumph of Eugenics,” that “the total black population of the United States is about 40 million. Including the children and grandchildren of these 19 million who were never born, it is reasonable to assume that, without legalized abortions, America’s black population would be in the order of 70 million or even more.”

And fake news calls Republicans racist! Typical projection—accusing your competition of what you yourself are guilty of!


The Democrat governors of New York and Virginia are not alone in their cravenly enthusiastic approval of infanticide. According to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, Wisconsin Democrat Governor Tony Evers (who succeeded pro-life Republican Gov. Scott Walker) “is perfectly okay with…infanticide as long as it’s done neatly and under the watchful eye of a healthcare professional.”

“We have all sorts of issues to deal with in the state of Wisconsin,” Evers told reporters, “and to pass a bill [like born-alive] seems to be not a productive use of time.”

In other words, kill those pesky babies so we can get to the important work of raising your taxes!

Following suit, the state of Rhode Island, led by Governor Gina Raimondo—you guessed it, a Democrat!—just enacted legislation to make abortion legal up to the moment of birth, including partial birth abortions.

And we know that California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom is hunky dory about abortions at any stage, but ever so sanguine about the lives of career murderers. He just abolished the state’s death penalty, effectively sparing the lives of over 700 savage killers on death row.

Not to omit that last May, the Illinois House passed a bill to repeal the ban on “partial-birth” abortions, and the Illinois Senate did them one better by expanding abortions through nine months and requiring insurance companies to provide coverage—and Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed it in June.

Democrat depravity marches on!


Hundreds of Babies are Born Alive After Failed Abortions and Left to Die

Ohio Gov Signs Budget Removing Planned Parenthood Funding, Will Fund Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Instead

Alyssa Milano Says Her ‘Life Would Be Completely Lacking’ If Not For Her Abortions

CBS Trashes President Trump After He Cuts Planned Parenthood Funding: He Hates Women

Iceland Holds Funeral to Mourn Melting Glacier, Kills 100% of Its Babies With Down Syndrome

EDITORS NOTE: This Canada Free Press column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Argentina’s Anti-Abortion Wave

Carlos Caso-Rosendi: Don’t cry for Argentina but pray for her strong pro-life movement, which has the potential to generate a global anti-abortion wave.

Over the weekend, the eclectic political coalition currently in power in Argentina suffered a massive defeat to a resurgent progressive wing of the Peronist party. If the Peronists win the final round of elections in October, they will seek to enforce in Argentina the model that the late Hugo Chavez imposed on Venezuela.

The incumbents campaigned in 2016 as a pro-life, free-market political option, only to deliver the usual globalist fare of stagnant salaries, price controls, abortion, etc. The resounding loss at the primary elections came partly as a result of a clash with other Argentine social forces, which have been little reported.

Days before, on August 8, pro-life activists in Buenos Aires celebrated the first anniversary of their victory in the Argentine Congress against the international and domestic promoters of abortion.  Pro-abortion forces thought they could win in August 2018. Politicians saw the pro-life crowds, however, and knew right away that supporting abortion was a vote killer. A 2018 abortion bill failed to pass in the Senate, but that was not the end of the matter. The soldiers of darkness were determined to establish abortion by hook or by crook.

Right after their ignominious defeat, the anti-life forces began a frantic campaign to use the judiciary to accomplish what they could not achieve in Congress. Their idea was to make noise everywhere in a vast campaign of judicial intimidation against pro-life physicians. That was not hard to do, since the Argentine judiciary is known to be one of the most corrupt in the western world.  In Argentina, where there’s a bribe, there’s a way.

The local media began a propaganda effort aimed at making the existing anti-abortion laws practically ineffective. They worked hard to make everyone believe that anti-abortion laws are a grave injustice against women in general.  Soon their campaign was extended to the area of sex education in schools. Listening to the activists, one would think that Argentine children were maliciously misinformed about human sexuality because they were not taught about the ways of sodomy at five years of age.

Members of a noisy leftist minority (about 3 percent of the electorate) joined the fray. Financed by anti-life organizations in the northern hemisphere, they adroitly orchestrated a campaign to sway public opinion in favor of abortion.  They presented radical bills that would allow anyone of any age to abort at any time of the gestation period.  Some of these proposals even included the option not to seek medical assistance, a convenient exception for a country where many physicians are Catholic.

The primary objective was to saturate the discussions in Congress with proposals so radical that they wouldn’t even make it to a voting session. In that way, the anti-life forces could later lament the “prejudices” being encouraged against their movement. These extreme bills also help make future pro-abortion bills look more moderate in comparison and therefore more likely to pass.

In the last twelve months, the abortion lobby financed legal action against doctors for denying services to women wanting abortions, some of them in late stages of pregnancy.  Gynecologist Leandro Rodríguez Lastra was convicted recently for refusing to perform a non-punishable abortion on a young victim of rape. He may lose his medical license and is at risk of serving time in prison for following his conscience. In many similar cases, the doctors were not convicted but were burdened with crippling legal fees after years of litigation.

The Argentine political left usually consider the United States to be the source of all evil. Yet this aggressive anti-American posture evaporates when it comes to grabbing fresh dollars from the likes of George Soros. The money to support all these legal attacks against doctors like Rodríguez Lastra comes from pro-abortion organizations abroad.

The unpopular Argentine left will never have the necessary numbers to vote abortion into law. Nevertheless, they try to create the impression of having massive support. They know Argentine politicians decide what principles to espouse after looking at the current opinion polls. Where the polls go, the politicians follow. The media helps by falsely presenting the pro-life collective as an “intolerant minority seeking to impose their Catholic beliefs on the general population.”

Help for the pro-life movement is coming from the least expected corner: the poor.  Since 1916, Argentina has endured a series of incompetent administrations. Regardless of their political leanings, they all imposed some form of socio-economic model that bred more poverty.

In Argentina, state corporativism operates in tandem with a (poorly) planned economy. The power brokers in that political order are basically members of a plutocracy, a club formed by corporate businessmen, union bosses, and politicians who enrich themselves while the system further impoverishes the poor. All Argentine administrations since 1916 have operated more or less in the same way. Argentina is trapped in a decadent economic model that condemns half of its population to poverty. Now, the Progressives want to add abortion, euthanasia, and other abominations to the mix.

The growth of poverty had unexpected consequences. The great surprise of 2019 is that the poor in Argentina are strongly pro-life.  It was truly moving to see women recently planting one tree for every baby born last year. Those were women inhabiting one of the poorest shantytowns in Buenos Aires. Their spontaneous symbolic gesture is a sign of the strong pro-life beliefs that still survive among poor Argentines. Despite the dark forces that seek to impose the murderous ways of global Sodom, the poor in Argentina remain strongly pro-life.

Don’t cry for Argentina but pray for her strong pro-life movement, because it has the potential to ignite a powerful global anti-abortion reaction. August 8 is now the International Day of Action to Save the Two Lives. One year after the Argentine pro-life political victory of August 8, 2018, its message resonates around the world.

“The least shall become a thousand and a little one a most strong nation: I the Lord will suddenly do this thing in its time.” (Isaiah 60: 22)


Carlos Caso-Rosendi

Carlos Caso-Rosendi is an Argentine-American writer. A convert, he was received in the Catholic Church in 2001. He is the founder of the Spanish website Primera Luz and his own blog in English, Carlos Caso-Rosendi. His books include Guadalupe: A River of LightArk of Grace – Our Blessed Mother in Holy Scripture, and A Vademecum of Catholic Apologetics. He lives in Buenos Aires.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Socialists Chip Away at the Second Amendment

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” – Noah Webster

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”  Noah Webster

We’ve all heard it before: the Second Amendment was never meant for citizens to have the sort of guns available today – it was just for hunting! Bull hockey, it was written to protect the right to shoot at tyrants and their agents when they have stolen liberty or property from the people. By that same logic the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the internet (which didn’t exist at the time) so kiss your free speech rights online goodbye!  We’ve already seen massive censorship.

Then there’s the “it was only implied for a militia” argument.  Another crock.

There’s a certain level of irony in liberals claiming that the second amendment was only implied for a militia. Any time a militia group does spring up they’re quickly denounced by the left including much of the neo-con establishment right.

Even National Review has had at least nine articles supporting various gun control laws. They advocated everything from universal background checks to Red Flag laws.  By now people should understand that William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol were the two men who changed the old right conservative Republican Party into this new neo-con Trotskyite left leaning cabal who will not stand up for our God given rights in the Constitution.

They tell us we don’t need guns, and I say, “The hell we don’t!”

El Paso, Texas – Dayton, Ohio

Call me cynical, or donning a tinfoil hat, but these shootings seem planned and coincidentally appear just at the right time for use by politicians who go to the extremes against firearms, including President Trump and his closest “advisors.” Let’s pray he backs away from all of this and keeps his promises to the American people.

Notice that after Congressman Steve Scalise was shot and nearly died at a Republican baseball game, there was not a scintilla of outrage for gun control by the left.

Interesting, is it not…The suspect in the congressional baseball practice shooting, James Hodgkinson, was a fierce Trump opponent who called him a traitor.  The left ignored it.

The manifesto written by the 21-year-old El Paso shooter who killed 20 and injured 26, was a leftist screed.  Patrick Crusius’s “My Life Page” was changed by progressive pinkos from Democrat to Republican as reported by Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit.  Crusius was a soulless video game player, just as President Trump stated.   His crime might be described as one of nihilism, the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless, an ideology of despair that has motivated rootless young men toward violent crimes throughout human history.

Dayton shooter, 24-year-old Connor Betz, was shot dead by police but not before he killed nine innocent people.  Betz had satanic patches on his clothing and was a registered democrat and a supporter of Elizabeth Warren.  The NY Post snagged over 3,000 of his tweets which included embraces of far-left stances and politicians — including presidential-hopeful senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont — as well as Antifa, anti-fascist protesters known to resort to violent tactics.  “I want socialism, and I’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding,” reads one tweet from the Betz account, according to Newsweek.

A person willing to kill innocents and be killed by the police while doing so surely would have no qualms about violating a state or federal law that prohibited the general ownership of the weapon he was about to use.

New Laws Are Lies

There are enough laws on the books.  There’s not a single new law that would change anything.  First Trump agreed to ban bump stocks, a stupid argument if there ever was one.  By labeling bump stocks “machine guns,” the ATF effectively changed their classification under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) and made them illegal under the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), a move which retroactively criminalizes their purchase and ownership.  By the way, the 1968 GCA was taken from Adolph Hitler’s gun ban.

If Trump signs any new laws, this will drive a huge wedge between him and his supporters.  True, there is no one else to vote for, but Trump supporters will not go out in droves as they did in 2016, which could give the election to the Democratic Socialists. If the President backs down on his promises, he will lose…and the left wants our guns, they want them out of our hands, and when the movie, The Hunt, becomes reality even though it’s now been pulled, we won’t have any way of firing back.

Our God given freedoms are codified by our Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.  Pressures are being applied on all Republican politicians to again bend to the socialists’ desires to eliminate firearms, especially by Ivanka Trump.  Stupid deals with these enemies of freedom have been made in the past, and every single time, Republicans have lost.  Why?  Because most of them do not represent us or Constitutional conservatism; they are part of the same globalist establishment as the Democratic Socialists.

Gun Free Zones and Joe Biden

Gun Free Zones are killing fields.  Whenever there is a shooting, the socialist democrats propose gun control; but when someone is raped or murdered by an illegal alien, the same people never demand border control!  This law has effectively turned schools into shooting galleries for deranged lunatics.

Research from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that 98 percent of all public mass shootings that occurred between 1950 and July 10, 2016, happened in gun-free zones.  Responding to this research, USA Today contributor Erich Pratt recently opined, “No wonder that 81% of police officers support arming teachers and principals, so that the real first responders — the potential victims — can protect the children.”

As of early 2018, educators in 33 states may not arm themselves to protect their students. Nor may schools in these 33 states even hire armed security guards.  Our children are literally sitting ducks.  This in turn means one and only one thing, as recently noted by conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, “Everybody that wants to shoot up a school knows that they are going to be the only one armed.”

Exactly. And if you scroll back through history, you’ll find that the reason this situation exists is because of Joe Biden who introduced the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990. Out of fairness, though, it should be noted that then New World Order President George H.W. Bush signed it into law after it passed the Democrat-led House and Senate.

Bush, a Republican, was no Second Amendment champion throughout his time in office. When he could have stood up for gun rights, Bush kowtowed to anti-gun pressure and signed this bill into law.

Nearly three decades later, Republican governors have made up ground by passing pro-gun legislation like Constitutional Carry.

However, this case is another reminder that just because a politician is a Republican does not guarantee that they will be a pro-gun champion.

Assault Weapon Bans

John Lott, President of Crime Prevention Research Center was interviewed on Mark Levin’s radio program and explained the three gun control bills now up by both Democratic Socialists and neo-con Trotskyite Republicans.  They are Assault Weapon Bans, Universal Background Checks and Red Flag Laws.

John Lott says they’re banning guns based on how they look rather than how they function.  The idiots in Congress have no clue of what they’re doing.  So, you can have a semi-automatic hunting rifle, which fires the same bullets with the same rapidity doing the same damage as a gun that looks like an M-16, but it’s not a weapon that militaries around the world would use.  The inside guts of it, which civilians have, is the same as any small caliber hunting rifle.  The vast majority of semi-automatic rifles in the United States are owned by people who own guns.  Banning guns on their looks when other guns operate the same way is pure stupidity.

The original assault weapons ban which Senator Feinstein and her staff got passed, was by flipping through pages of catalogues on assault weapons and marking off different names of guns simply by how they looked.  Even people paid by the Clinton administration couldn’t find any benefit of this insane law.  There was actually a small drop in the states where the assault weapon ban was dropped versus the states where it was not.  The original Feinstein ban expired in 2004.

Universal Background Checks

Now they want background checks on the private transfer of firearms, which means going to a licensed dealer and having them do the background check.  In Washington DC you’d have to pay the dealer $125.00 to do the background check, and that’s per firearm.  Another monetary leeching of the gun owners.  According to John Lott of Crime Prevention Research Center, there have been no mass murders this century by anyone who privately purchased a firearm.  The vast majority of firearms are purchased through dealers where there is already a background check via the National Instant Background Check Systems (NICS).

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 was launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998 and mandated NICS. It is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 230 million such checks have been made, leading to more than 1.3 million denials.  NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

Red Flag Laws

A red flag law is a politically divided gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves without due process and facing their accusers in a court of law.

Again, these laws, also called “extreme risk protection orders,” allow courts to issue orders allowing law enforcement to seize firearms from people who’ve committed no crime but are believed to be a danger to themselves or others.

President Trump has signaled his backing of bipartisan Senate legislation sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).  This is very dangerous.  Any extreme leftist neighbor who decides they don’t like you, can report that you own firearms and are acting in a way that could harm someone.  Whether true or not, you could lose your ability to own firearms.  President Trump in one tweet shows why ‘red flag’ laws are so very dangerous.

The Red Flag Laws virtually have nothing to do with mental health.  There are 17 states which have this law now and only one of them even mentions the term “mental health” in it.  The basic notion is that they’re trying to predict whether someone will commit a crime or harm themselves.  This reminds me of the Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report where the government would predict someone’s future crimes and arrest the person before the behavior.

Already on the books is a 72-hour hold (Baker Act) on someone who has psychiatric problems and has been reported.  However, what the Red Flag law wants to do is to get rid of some of the restrictions from the Baker Act.  With the Baker Act, you have psychiatric experts evaluate the person and make a decision, but with Red Flag laws there are no psychiatric experts making a decision.

First you have a complaint and it varies across states, some states friends can do it, some states relatives can do it…police, or in Colorado, anyone can do it.  A judge basically looks at a piece of paper that summarizes the complaint, then in a short period of time depending on the state, the police will go in and take the firearms.  They’ll have a hearing in a couple weeks, but the problem is there’s no legal representation automatically provided to the targeted person.  The prosecutors basically act as lawyers for the person making the complaint.

Red Flag laws are totally unconstitutional, the very presumption of innocence and the due process of law requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to punishment or sanctions prohibits the loss of liberty.  Recently we’ve seen the presumption of innocence turned upside down with Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the spurious investigation of our President for nearly three years.

Nevertheless, the American left has diligently tried to punish people and deprive us of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.  The Soviets used psychiatric testimony to predict criminal behavior which we condemned in the 80s, but now our President seems to want it here.  In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do.

This is a “turn in your conservative neighbor” law, and is a massive danger to freedom.


Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin said, “In a nation where over the last 50 years we’ve aborted 60 million unborn babies, and we have multiple states with medically assisted suicide being provided by physicians at both ends of the life spectrum, we’re losing the value for life that we once historically had.  Firearms are not the problem; the problem is our culture of death.”

Fifty years ago, children didn’t walk into schools with firearms and shoot their fellow classmates.  In fact, the high school I went to in Park Ridge, Illinois had an underground shooting range and a Rifle Club.  There were pickup trucks in the parking lot with gun racks on the back and the rifles in plain view.  Kids brought their rifles on the bus with them, they kept them in their cars, most of which were unlocked.  We were never exposed to what today’s children are exposed to at a very young age.  The problems with our culture are systemic, and day by day they are growing worse.

It’s easy to blame the tools used in these killings so as to part American citizens from their own self-defense, but the real cultural issues are far more complex and are rarely discussed. It’s the morality, and what’s the cause of this morality? We have driven God out of the public arena.

George Washington said in his Farewell Address that it is religion that sustains morality. If you undermine religion, you’ll undermine morality.

That is precisely what has happened to America. Beginning with a whole series of misguided Supreme Court decisions, religious influence in society, especially Christian, was restricted more and more. By the 1960s, God was effectively kicked out of the public schools along with prayer and the Ten Commandments.

When we had God in the classrooms, there was no need for armed guards in the hallways.


Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates

Kamala Harris’s Poorly Thought Out Gun Control Proposals

The Date For The Democrats’ Anti-Gun Push On The Hill Is Set 

The Grim Consequences Of Democratic Socialism

© All rights reserved.

Joe Biden’s Adventures in the Natural Law

Hadley Arkes on a fair trade: The Church will not instruct a Biden or a Cuomo about politics, if they’ll stop misleading Catholics about Church teaching.

William Blackstone, that venerable commentator on the English law, remarked that it was a contradiction in terms to suggest that the law may recognize a principle of revolution.  And yet, James Wilson, one of the premier minds among the American Founders, insisted that the law in America could indeed encompass a principle of revolution.

For the law in America began with the recognition that there could be an unjust law – a measure passed with all of the trappings of legality and yet wanting in the very substance of justice.  Americans could readily grasp that point because they began with an understanding of moral truths and natural rights quite apart from the laws that were “posited” or enacted in any place. And that body of natural law would supply the standards for judging the rightness or justice of the things enacted as law.

But by the end of the 19th century, the natural law had become an object of derision among lawyers.  In our own time, conservatives sharpened the reaction against natural law as they recoiled from liberal judges, moving outside the text of the Constitution, inventing new rights to contraception and abortion.  They were false constructions of natural right, but they had to be met by showing what was false in the reasoning.

The conservatives, however, were losing their confidence in moral reasoning, and so their ingenious strategy was to avoid any hint of moral reasoning altogether.

When Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, he had shaped a remarkable record as a professor and a wise jurist, but with a deep dubiety about the natural law.   At the infamous hearings over his confirmation, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, was the redoubtable Joseph Biden.  Faced with a legal “positivist,” Biden thought he would embarrass Bork by staking out a strong position in natural law:

As a child of God, I believe my rights are not derived from the Constitution.  My rights are not derived from any government. My rights are not derived from any majority.  My rights are because I exist.  They were given to me and each of my fellow citizens by our creator and they represent the essence of human dignity.

Biden was striking this posture because Bork would have been a likely vote in overturning Roe v. Wade.   That right to abortion was being treated now by the Left as a species of “natural right.”  And yet, James Wilson had raised the question: If we have natural rights as human beings, when do they begin? The answer: as soon as we begin to be.  Which was why, as Wilson said, the common law cast its protection over human beings “when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.”

Despite his Catholic background Joe Biden was, and remains today, a firm defender of a right to abortion.  And yet, if I have those rights, “as a child of God . . . because I exist,” the child in the womb must be the bearer of those rights.   How could a pregnant woman have a right then to sweep away the natural rights of the child by the simple expedient of removing, in a stroke, the bearer of those rights?

Biden’s position might have been salvaged, I guess, if he just didn’t consider the child in the womb a human being on the same plane as any other human. But if our rights do not depend on the votes of majorities, could it be that our very standing as human beings could be left in the hands of majorities, in legislatures or courts?  Or worse: that the decision could be left to the woman and man who have already found an interest in killing the child?

But four years later Biden found himself delivered from his problem. He now had before his Committee, for hearings, Clarence Thomas, who was charged with the offense of taking natural law seriously at times.  That new threat to Roe v. Wade marked a change of 180 degrees.

In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Biden warned that if we had judges again who took natural law seriously, we would have a throwback to those reactionary judges who resisted the New Deal in the 1930s, with its regulation of business.  We would go back, he said, to the kinds of teachings offered by this Professor Arkes in this preposterous book, First Things.

The years would roll on and Joe Biden would settle in with the clichés offered by the Cuomos and Pelosis: He would not impose, through the laws, the “personal” “beliefs” he had absorbed through his religion. But the Church, on abortion, has never appealed to “beliefs.”  The teaching has drawn on the facts of embryology, woven with principled reasoning.

Since they were moral teachings, made communal, they had never been merely “personal.”  We’ve come to see the deep reluctance of bishops to challenge the leading Catholic politicians who have offered this oh-so-familiar evasion, for they don’t want those politicians charged with the offense of taking orders from their Church.

And yet, one wonders why something as simple as this may not be said: The Church would not tell the Bidens and Cuomos what to say as they make their careers in politics, but they surely would have no moral right to mislead a wide audience of Catholics about the teachings of their own Church.


Hadley Arkes

Hadley Arkes is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence Emeritus at Amherst College and the Founder/Director of the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights & the American Founding. His most recent book is Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar, First Principles and Natural Law is now available for download.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

President Donald J. Trump is Ensuring Non-Citizens Do Not Abuse Our Nation’s Public Benefits

PROTECTING PUBLIC RESOURCES: The Trump Administration is taking action to help ensure that non-citizens in this country are self-sufficient and not a strain on public resources.  

  • The Trump Administration is releasing a final rule that will protect American taxpayers, preserve our social safety net for vulnerable Americans, and uphold the rule of law.
  • This action will help ensure that if aliens want to enter or remain in the United States they must support themselves, and not rely on public benefits.
  • An alien who receives public benefits above a certain threshold is known as a “public charge.”
    • Aliens will be barred from entering the United States if they are found likely to become public charges.
    • Aliens in the United States who are found likely to become public charges will also be barred from adjusting their immigration status.
  • President Trump is enforcing this longstanding law to prevent aliens from depending on public benefit programs.
    • The Immigration and Nationality Act makes clear that those seeking to come to the United States cannot be a public charge.
  • For many years, this clear legal requirement went largely unenforced, imposing vast burdens on American taxpayers. Now, public charge law will finally be utilized.

ENCOURAGING SELF-SUFFICIENCY: Self-sufficiency has long been a basic principle of our Nation’s immigration laws that has enjoyed widespread support.

  • Public charge has been a part of United States immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility.
  • Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed two bipartisan bills in 1996 to help stop aliens from exploiting public benefits.
    • This included the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
    • As Congress made clear at the time, it is our national policy that aliens should “not depend on public resources to meet their needs.”
  • Americans widely agree that individuals coming to our country should be self-sufficient, with 73 percent in favor of requiring immigrants to be able to support themselves financially.

PRESERVING THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET: We must ensure that non-citizens do not abuse our public benefit programs and jeopardize the social safety net needed by vulnerable Americans. 

  • Large numbers of non-citizens and their families have taken advantage of our generous public benefits, limited resources that could otherwise go to vulnerable Americans.
  • 78 percent of households headed by a non-citizen with no more than a high school education use at least one welfare program.
  • 58 percent of all households headed by a non-citizen use at least one welfare program.
  • Half of all non-citizen headed households include at least one person who uses Medicaid.

© All rights reserved.


Why Blacks Should Ignore the Liberal Agenda

This Sheriff Was Sued for Cooperating With ICE. Now, He’s Vindicated.

The Humanitarian Hoax of “Assisted” Suicide: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was the Michigan pathologist and euthanasia advocate who supported a patient’s right to die by physician-assisted suicide. His famous remark, “Dying is not a crime,” launched a public debate about the ethics of physician assisted-suicide.

Dr. Kevorkian was a pioneer in the controversial matter of physician-assisted suicide. Dubbed Dr. Death by the media, Kevorkian’s career and trials were widely publicized, and discussions about the ethics of physician-assisted suicide went mainstream. Between 1994-1997 Kevorkian was tried four times for physician-assisted suicide.

In 1990, Dr. Kevorkian was arrested and convicted of second-degree murder for his role in the physician-assisted suicide of Thomas Youk 52, a patient in the final stages of Lou Gehrig’s disease. Kevorkian was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison and then granted parole after serving 8 years. He devoted his last years to lecturing and changing the laws on physician-assisted suicide.

As individuals living in a free country we embrace our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what about our right to die? Dr. Kevorkian raised public consciousness about terminally ill patients and their right to die. The problem, of course, is the opportunity for abuse in “assisting” suicides.

Legalizing assisted suicide is legalizing self-murder, so beyond any religious opposition to “playing God,” there is the secular opposition based on the possibility of murder disguised as suicide. That brings us to “politically-assisted” suicide, and the increasingly suspicious and ever-growing Clinton family body count. WHAT??

It is impossible to ignore the growing list of individuals scheduled to testify against the Clintons who are mysteriously found dead before their court dates. Some have been ruled murders and some ruled suicides – all are suspicious. Let’s take a look at a few.

March of 2015: FBI Special Agent David Raynor was found stabbed and murdered with his own gun the day before he was scheduled to testify before the US Federal Grand Jury. Raynor was expected to expose that Clinton acted illegally to coverup the Fast and Furious scandal to protect Obama. Raynor was leading the investigation into the murder of one of the main witnesses, homicide Detective Sean Suiter, who Raynor believed had been killed before he could testify that the Obama administration, “. . .was criminally complicit in allowing guns to flow into the hands of criminals on the Mexican border.” Politically-assisted suicide?

July of 2017: Klaus Eberwein, a former Haitian government official scheduled to testify against Clinton Foundation corruption and malpractice was found dead in Miami with a gunshot wound to his head – the death was ruled a suicide. Eberwein was expected to expose that only 0.6% of donations for Haitian aid were actually received, 9.6% went to the Haitian government, and 89.8% – a whopping 5.5 billion dollars went to non-Haitian organizations. Politically-assisted suicide?

June 22, 2016: Who can forget John Ashe, the former United Nations General Assembly President who “accidentally” dropped a barbell on his throat the day he was supposed to testify about Hillary Clinton’s ties to Ng Lap Seng, the Chinese businessman on trial for bribery. Ng Lap Seng had been implicated in the 1996 China-gate scandal for funneling illegal donations to Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign. Politically-assisted suicide?

July 20, 1993: Vince Foster, deputy White House Counsel, had intimate knowledge of the Clintons’ personal finances and had been called to testify about records that Hillary refused to turn over. Foster was found dead in Ft Marcy Park in Washington, DC. His death was reported as a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his mouth, and ruled a suicide even though the suicide note was forged, and the gunshot wound to the back of his neck went unreported. Politically-assisted suicide?

July 10, 2016: Seth Rich, the DNC Voter Expansion Data Director, found shot multiple times near his home in Bloomingdale, DC. His death was ruled a robbery gone bad even though nothing was taken – his wallet, watch, and cell phone were there. Really? One wonders just how stupid the media thinks the public really is. Seth Rich has been identified by many as the internal leak of the 20,000 DNC emails that proved the DNC was rigging primaries to favor Hillary. Seth Rich could prove that there was no Russian hack – and then he was dead. Politically-assisted suicide?

August 10, 1991: Danny Casolaro, a journalist working on a book exposing government-sanctioned drug running, was found dead in his hotel bathtub. His death was ruled a suicide even though the slashes severed the tendons to his fingers making it impossible for him to slash both wrists. Casolaro was investigating the curious case of the Justice Department’s theft of a law enforcement database software system called Prosecutors Management Information System (PROMIS) from a company called Inslaw. In 1991 PROMIS was unique because it could be programmed to automatically access other databases. It was a powerful spying tool used during the time of the Iran-Contra affair, the CIA’s clandestine gun and drug running operation that supplied the Nicaraguan Contras with untraceable weapons. Under then-governor Bill Clinton’swatch, Nicaragua was at one end of the drug smuggling pipeline, and Mena, Arkansas at the other. WHAT?? We will come back to this.

February 19, 1986: Barry Seal, the Louisiana pilot who smuggled drugs in and out of the Mena airport for the Medellin Cartel was murdered. Seal was earning as much as $1,300,000 per flight to transport cocaine from Colombia and Panama to the United States. In 1984 Seal was caught and made a deal to become an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Seal testified against the Medellin Drug Cartel and was murdered by contract killers hired by Pablo Escobar, head of the cartel. On March 29, 1995 Robert Bates, Barry Seal’s mechanic, supposedly died of an “overdose of mouthwash.” Seriously?

The list of suspicious deaths, euphemistically called the Clinton body count or Arkancide, continues to grow but perhaps the most intriguing at this moment is the death of CIA drug pilot Barry Seal. Are we supposed to believe that the CIA drug running stopped with Barry Seal’s death? Not likely. Enter Jeffrey Epstein.

August 10, 2019: Convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein found dead in his cell the day after 2,000 court documents were unsealed. The media remains focused on the names of the rich and famous who would have been outed if Epstein’s case went to trial. I am far more interested in what else was on Jeffrey Epstein’s plane besides underage girls. Is it possible that Jeffrey Epstein replaced Barry Seal? Is it possible that Jeffrey Epstein’s extremely suspicious “suicide” was an attempt to stop him from making a deal with the DOJ that would have outed Hillary, Bill, and Obama’s malfeasance in CIA covert drug running operations? Politically-motivated suicide?

Financier Jeffrey Epstein worked at the investment bank Bear Stearns before forming his own firm in 1982, J. Epstein & Co in St Thomas, VI. Epstein’s firm serviced an exclusively wealthy clients with $1 billion or more in assets. The dubious nature of Epstein’s business was discussed in a Business Insider article dated July 22, 2009 by Jay Carney titled, “Is Jeff Epstein Also Running a Ponzi Scheme?

The article asks if Epstein is running a Ponzi scheme? There are no analysts, portfolio managers, or traders. All the investment decisions are made by Epstein himself. Epstein has absolute control of the money, charges a flat fee of between $25 million-$100 million, and takes no share of the profits. Even more curious according to Carney, “There are no SEC filings disclosing Epstein’s holdings. Not one. It’s hard to see how he could be managing billions without ever tripping a disclosure trigger, unless he avoids the stock market altogether and only invests in private deals.” Perhaps Jeffrey Epstein’s private deals were with the CIA – perhaps not.

Doug Band, deputy assistant and then counselor to Bill Clinton, introduced Epstein to Clinton. Band served as President Clinton’s aide and travelled to 125 countries with Clinton. During his post-presidency, Band helped set up the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation. Band negotiated with the Obama administration to have Hillary Clinton become Secretary of State. Oh my!

Perhaps Epstein’s Lolita Express was flying cargo besides the conspicuously underage young girls. Perhaps Epstein was flying drugs and money in and out of the Virgin Islands which is known to be the South American cartel drug-trafficking trans-shipment point. According to a 4.10.15 article in Virgin Island News, “One of the FBI’s 10 most wanted fugitives was captured (a Virgin Islander ‘Jimmy the Juice’ Springette) and testified in 2008 about the massive drug-trafficking operation transporting tons of cocaine for South American Cartels through the Virgin Islands to the mainland United States via the airport, cruise-ships, and other means.”

Perhaps during the 27 times that Bill Clinton flew with Jeffrey Epstein aboard the Lolita Express, the teenage girls onboard were the main attraction that shielded the late-night show. If the smugglers were ever caught, the sex trafficking would be the focus of the investigation and the drug running would remain concealed. Diversionary tactics are classic strategies of war – why would drug wars be any different?

It simply strains credulity to believe that the extremely suspicious death of Jeffrey Epstein was a suicide – unless of course it was a politically-assisted suicide.

The humanitarian hoax of politically-assisted suicide must be investigated as part of Attorney General Barr’s efforts to drain the corrupt Washington swamp and restore government credibility. Enough is enough! The country has had enough of the Clinton Crime family. It is time to investigate prominent American political crime families for racketeering starting with the odious Clintons.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Regarding Marriage: 42 Years and Counting

Various academics say marriage is oppressive and unhealthy for women. Leftists foolishly deem themselves smarter than God. They always denounce and seek to undermine God’s plan in every area of life.

Speaking about marriage, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” Genesis 2:24

God’s plan for marriage is one man and one woman.

The Bible says he who finds a wife finds a good thing. My beautiful wife Mary and I are celebrating 42 years of marriage. Interracial dating was taboo when we married. Early in our marriage, our car was chased by a carload of white racists. Strolling in Baltimore’s historic Fells Point, a bunch of angry white guys chased us into a bar. While eating in a family restaurant, a white guy approached our table, broke a beer bottle over my head and ran out of the restaurant. Still, Mary was willing to give up everything to be with me. She has been my lover, greatest advocate and friend; always encouraging me by saying, “I see greatness in you.” My wife Mary has been an amazing, “good thing”.

Leftist women will hate this. Mary brings me coffee in bed every morning. On our anniversary, while she was sleeping, I posted signs around the house which read, “Happy Anniversary! I love you!’ I know that sounds corny, but I knew she would like it.

Before Mary awoke, I drove to the mom and pop bakery for a pastry. I told Miss Lynn, the baker, my plan to surprise Mary with something sweet. She went in the back and reappeared with a tray of beautiful pastries. She said, “I just made these and your wife will love it.”

Miss Lynn said she and her husband have been married for 47 years. She said, “People don’t hang in there for the long haul anymore.” I jokingly replied, “You and your husband have never been angry or had a disagreement.” She chuckled and said, “No, never.” She said, “I’ve never considered divorce, but I have considered murder.” We both laughed. I thanked her and wished her a wonderful day.

The Bible says do not let the sun go down on your wrath. In my first marriage, anger between us would last several days; foolishly saying hurtful things to each other we could not take back. In 42 years, Mary and I have never ended a day angry at each other.

Rather than celebrating our anniversary with dinner at a fancy restaurant, we purchased a half bushel of Maryland steamed crabs to enjoy at home. As former Baltimorians, this is our version of heaven.

Over thirty years ago, I wrote a song honoring Mary. It is titled, “When I Look In Your Eyes.” Please enjoy our music video.

The Humanitarian Hoax of the 2019-2020 Equality Act: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

The 116th Congress 2019-2020 Equality Act is a Democrat bill prohibiting discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in multiple areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Sounds great – what’s the problem?

The Equality Act “updates” the definitions of three terms: sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, and “expands” the categories of public accommodations. On May 17, 2019 H.R. 5: Equality Act passed the Democrat controlled House with unanimous support from Democrats plus eight Republican votes. Next, it goes to the Republican controlled Senate for consideration. Why the partisan split?

The Equality Act seeks to amend and expand the expressly recognized “non-discrimination” categories in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act was designed to provide equal protection under the law to African Americans and to women in 20th century America making it illegal to discriminate against them based on race, ethnicity, or gender. In 1964 the word “gender” was specifically understood to mean male or female in the biological, chromosomal, colloquial sense of the word. In the 21st century the leftist Democrat party is selling sameness as equality and feelings as facts – they are not the same.

Even the name Equality Act is part of the deception. The name evokes compassion in the casual observer, but there is nothing equal about the Equality Act, it is a colossal humanitarian hoax that redefines maleness and femaleness with the words “gender identity.” This is how it works.

No longer satisfied with laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender, the radical left has taken aim at the biological definition of maleness and femaleness making it a subjective matter of opinion rather than an objective matter of chromosomes. Gender identity is not the same as gender. Why is this important?

Facts are not feelings. Facts support the objective reality that is the foundation of biological science, laws, and ordered liberty. Feelings support the subjective reality of political science, the arts, and psychology. We can have feelings about facts, but feelings cannot change facts in a society of ordered liberty. The danger of confusing objective and subjective reality is discussed at length in “The Humanitarian Hoax of Multiple Realities.”

In science, the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes found in that individual’s DNA. Females have two of the same chromosomes XX, males are identified by having two different chromosomes XY.

Chromosomal sex determination in mammals is a natural function of human development with a primary and secondary component. Primary development is the determination of gonads internal sex glands that make sex hormones and reproductive cells – testes in the male and ovaries in the female. Secondary sex determination are the external expression of maleness and femaleness outside the gonads. This means a male has a penis, seminal vesicles, and prostate glands. The female has a vagina, cervix, uterus, oviducts, and mammary glands.

For the vast majority of the world’s population including, the United States, sexual development is an uncomplicated natural function of human reproduction. Leftist Democrats are exploiting the minuscule portion of the human population that has chromosomal abnormalities and/or ambiguous secondary sex characteristics for political gain.

The leftist Democrat party is attempting to alter the biological science of objective reality, facts, and chromosomes, and replace it with the subjective world of feelings, shattering the foundation of biological sciences and turning it into political science. This is the core of the humanitarian hoax of the Equality Act because it functionally obliterates the differences between maleness and femaleness making them the same rather than equal.

This is extremely important because sameness has serious consequence in society both legally and socially.

Let’s examine the consequences of the Democrat “update” including “gender identity” as it relates to the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, particularly Title II, III, IV and V:

Title II – Public accommodations such as lodging, restaurants and theaters, may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin.

Title III – Explicitly prohibits state and local governments from discrimination based on race, religion, color, or national origin in public facilities.

Title IV – Provides for the federal enforcement of desegregating public schools.

Title V – Empowers the Civil Rights Commission to further investigate and act on allegations of discrimination.

According to Wikipedia, “Gender identity is the personal sense of one’s own gender. Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth or can differ from it. All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of the formation of a person’s social identity in relation to other members of society. In most societies, there is a basic division between gender attributes assigned to males and females, a gender binary to which most people adhere and which includes expectations of masculinity and femininity in all aspects of sex and gender: biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression.”

The first and most basic human identity is universally announced around the world at the moment of birth. “It’s a boy!” “It’s a girl!”  What this means is that in most societies around the world people accept the binary definitions of maleness and femaleness based on XX and XY chromosomes and their factual physical expression. The leftist Democrat attempt to redefine maleness and femaleness as non-binary and a matter of personal feelings, is a political power grab by the left selling sameness as equality. Why would they do that?

The leftist Democrat motivation is to collapse America from within and replace our democracy with socialism and our capitalism with communism. The left did not originate dirty political tricks, they have just honed them to an art form. Of the 45 Communist Goals read into the Congressional Record-Appendix, pp. A34-A35 on January 10, 1963 items 17 24, 25, 26, 39, 40, and 41 that seek to collapse accepted norms and the authority of the family are of special interest to this discussion.

If the Equality Act passes, schools will be teaching the leftist non-binary definition of maleness and femaleness to America’s children. The biological differences between boys and girls will be denied and the social norms of privacy obliterated. Titles II, III, IV, and V will force the implementation of joint bathrooms, joint locker rooms, joint showering facilities, joint sports teams, etc etc etc. The deceitful Equality Act targets America’s children with Lenin’s prescient warning, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

Six decades ago when W. Cleon Skousen published The Naked Communist and the Civil Rights Act was passed, it was unimaginable that leftist radicals would attempt to destabilize and transform society by redefining maleness and femaleness. Skousen, an anti-Communist and former FBI special agent and field director for the American Security Council, served President Ronald Reagan on the Council for National Policy. He maintained that Communism was waging a psychological war designed to soften America and change American thinking in preparation for the final Communist takeover.

From “The Naked Communist,” by W. Cleon Skousen 1958 p.224-227 Waking Lion Press


1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N.   as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court

It is chilling how much the 2020 Democrat party platform comports to the Communist goals listed in the 1963 Congressional Record-Appendix. The Democrat party has devolved from the America-first voice of JFK to the screeching sounds of leftist radicals who embrace Communism disguised as equality. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the new face of the New Democrat party, unapologetically seeks to make America Communist. She and her handlers have usurped the authority of former party leaders and are leading the insurrection against the old guard to establish the subversive new Democrat In Name Only (DINO) party.

Communism has always had world domination as its goal. Joseph Stalin explains how socialism is the stepping stone in his famous quote,

“World dictatorship can be established only when victory of socialism has been achieved in certain countries or groups of countries . . . and when these federation of republics have finally grown into a world union of Soviet Socialist Republics uniting the whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat organized as a state.” Stalin elaborates, “Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage to world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalty to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later the regions can be brought together all the way into a single world dictatorship.”

Since its inception, Communism has been determined to eliminate all religions and their moral authority. Communism views religions as competing ideologies to the absolute authority of the state. Evangelical leader Franklin Graham reveals how the Equality Act legalizes reverse discrimination against the moral teachings and authority of our American Judeo-Christian tradition. Of special interest to his argument are items 27 and 28 that seek to discredit religion and its moral authority:

“Rather than offering meaningful protections for individuals, the Equality Act would impose sweeping new norms that negatively impact the unborn, health care, charitable services, schools, personal privacy, athletics, free speech, religious liberties, and parental rights,” five chairmen of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) declared in May.

“The Act’s unsound definitions of ‘sex’ and ’gender identity’ would erase women’s distinct, hard-won recognition in federal laws. Its sex-based nondiscrimination terms would end women’s shelters and many single-sex schools. It would close faith-based foster care and adoption agencies that honor children’s rights to a mother and father. The bill would even act as an abortion mandate, the bishops added.”

Beyond its confusing, destabilizing, psychological consequences to children in American schools K-12, the Equality Act would eliminate separate bathrooms, locker rooms, bathing facilities etc for adult men, and women in public spaces nationwide. Our cultural norms and ordered liberty in America have always recognized the biological differences between male and female. Men and women are NOT the same – equal yes, the same NO.

The 2019-2020 Equality Act is part of the sinister attack David Horowitz describes in his new book, Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America.

Horowitz explains how the Culture War against Christianity is a war against America and its founding principles rooted in Judeo-Christian norms and Western civilization. He reveals how after the communist empire fell, progressives did not abandon their fight, they simply re-branded communism as “social justice.”

A 6.10.19 article by Robert Curry titled, “Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, Western Civ Has Got to Go” recalls Jesse Jackson’s 1987 protest march at Stanford University. The protest was against Stanford’s required introductory humanities program “Western Culture” – not enough diversity for the protesters. The aftermath is clear. Radicalized professors abandoned teaching Western civilization in favor of teaching multiculturalism. Protesters led by politicians at Stanford thirty years ago successfully rid the university of a course in Western civilization.

Protesters led by politicians today are targeting Western civilization itself. Skousen’s 45 communist goals are the dark agenda of the current radical leftist Democrat party. If we allow leftist politicians to redefine maleness and femaleness, we will be facilitating their communist goals and promoting the social chaos that seismic social change requires.

The goal of subversion is to shatter the authority of the three pillars of American society – family, god, and government/patriotism – and substitute them with loyalty to the state. The collectivist infrastructure of socialism/communism requires complete centralization of authority so that the exclusive and singular authority is the state. The leftist Democrats imagine that if they succeed, they will be the final authority with complete power for the foreseeable future. Uh-oh!

In a stunning 1984 interview, former Soviet KGB informant and Soviet journalist defector Yuri Bezmenov discusses the Soviet subversion attempts in America after WWII.

Most Americans find it difficult to accept that Soviet attempts to infiltrate and collapse America are ongoing and have found a friend in leftist Democrats. Some of the Democrat collaborators are ideologues, others are corrupt politicians, but all are useful idiots working against the interests of the United States. Useful idiots?

Yes, Bezmenov makes it crystal clear that if the Soviets ever prevail, there will be no place in society for the collaborating leftist useful idiots. They will all be killed. Case closed.

The humanitarian hoax of the leftist Democrat Equality Act attempting to sell sameness as equality must be rejected entirely. If America allows the left to substitute subjective reality for objective reality we will find ourselves living in the communist nightmare that Yuri Bezmenov describes.

I am an American.
I am an American and I reject Russian communism.
I am an American and I reject Russian communism and Marxist socialism.
I am an American and I reject Russian communism, Marxist socialism, and leftist Democrats.
I am an American and I reject Russian communism, Marxist socialism, and leftist Democrats. I support the United States Constitution.
I am an American and I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

I am an American and I entirely reject the humanitarian hoax of the very unequal leftist Equality Act.

Tell your Senators to vote NO on the deceitful H.R. 5: Equality Act while you still can.

RELATED ARTICLE: Polish archbishop vows to resist ‘LGBT ideology’

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: The Big Lie About Political Parties and Family Values is Exposed


Dana Allen is the leader of a new television network, “American Uncensored News Network”!! Dana was the Co-Founder and Chairman of from 1998 to 2000. He was President of American Investigator Television from 2000 to 2001. Dana Allen was Founder, CEO, President and Chairman of Sequoia Data Corporation from 1987 to 1996, where he founded the first pure E-commerce company which went to market in 1989 with CompuMarket®, a product quite similar to today’s eBay.

TOPICThe Big Lie About Political Parties And Family Values Is Exposed

Paul Driessen, senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

TOPICFraud and corruption bring big payoffs!!

Karen Kataline is a frequent guest host on AM Talk Radio. She is the producer and host of Spouting Off, a live, Internet call-in talk show covering politics, pop culture and a little psychology thrown in. Her Op Eds can be seen in Investor’s Business Daily, Western Journal, Town Hall, The Daily Caller and The American Thinker. She is the author of an award-winning memoir, FATLASH! Food Police & the Fear of Thin, a personal account and analysis of her experience with child beauty pageants, food restriction and her “stage mother on steroids.”

TOPICLeftism is Destructive to Mental Health!! 

RELATED ARTICLE: Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin Signs Bill to Ban Abortions When Unborn Baby’s Heartbeat Begins

Google Is Burying Alternative Health Sites to Protect People from ‘Dangerous’ Medical Advice

For their unorthodox views, some physicians are being treated as medical heretics. Google’s search engine algorithm has essentially ended traffic to their websites.

In Ray Bradbury’s classic novel Fahrenheit 451, firemen don’t put out fires; they create fires to burn books.

The totalitarians claim noble goals for book burning. They want to spare citizens unhappiness caused by having to sort through conflicting theories.

The real aim of censorship, in Bradbury’s dystopia, is to control the population. Captain Beatty explains to the protagonist fireman Montag, “You can’t build a house without nails and wood. If you don’t want a house built, hide the nails and wood.” The “house” Beatty is referring to is opinions in conflict with the “official” one.

If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it.

When making decisions, we often face conflicting theories. Daily, we face choices about what to eat. Although the government issues ever-changing dietary guidelines, thankfully, the marketplace supports personal dietary decisions ranging from carnivore to vegan. We are free to choose our diet based on our evaluation of the available evidence and the needs of our bodies.

When we face health issues, decisions become tougher. There is an orthodox opinion, and there are always dissenting opinions. For example, the orthodoxy recommends statins to reduce high cholesterol. Others believe high cholesterol is not a health risk and that statins are harmful.

Nobel laureate in economics Vernon Smith was taking a prescribed statin and recently observed the impact it was having on him:

In the last week I had a very clear (now) experience of temporary memory loss. I did a little searching and found this article summarizing and documenting the evidence over many years.

Smith continues,

Such incidents have been widely reported, but the problem did not arise in any of the clinical trials, but neither were they designed to detect it.

Smith had to weigh the purported benefits against the side effects:

Statin effectiveness in reducing heart/stroke events needs to be weighed against this important negative. Since I am actively writing, this is a primal concern for me, and I have stopped taking it.

A free person understands that there is no one “best” pathway. Although experts have knowledge, a free person takes responsibility, makes a choice, and bears the consequences. We never know what the consequences would have been had we made a different choice.

Some people don’t like to take responsibility for health choices. They prefer to do what they’re told by the doctor.

“Do you understand now why books are hated and feared?” asks Ray Bradbury’s character Professor Faber in Fahrenheit 451. Faber responds to his own rhetorical question:

Because they reveal the pores on the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, expressionless.

Bradbury is reminding us that life is messy. Often there is no comfortable one-size-fits-all solution to the challenges we face.

Despite the evidence against statins, the medical orthodoxy would like you to believe that those who question statins are being hoodwinked by fake news. The orthodoxy wants you to believe there is one size for all.

Duke University’s Dr. Ann Marie Navar is the Associate Editor of JAMA Cardiology. In her article, “Fear-Based Medical Misinformation,” she rails against the “fake medical news and fearmongering [that] plague the cardiovascular world through relentless attacks on statins.”

She writes many patients remain concerned about statin safety. In one study, concerns about statin safety were the leading reason patients reported declining a statin, with more than one in three patients (37 percent) citing fears about adverse effects as their reason for not starting a statin after their physician recommended.

Dr. Navar takes the position that concerns about safety are “fake medical news,” spread in part by ignorant patients via social media. Don’t worry, she counsels, reports are incorrect when they claim “that statins cause memory loss, cataracts, pancreatic dysfunction, Lou Gehrig disease, and cancer.”

Fake news? Dr. David Brownstein (no relation) disagrees:

The Physicians Desk Reference states that adverse reactions associated with Lipitor include cognitive impairment (memory loss, forgetfulness, amnesia, memory impairment, and confusion associated with statin use). Furthermore post-marketing studies have found Lipitor use associated with pancreatitis. Other researchers have reported a relationship between statin use and Lou Gehrig’s disease. Finally, peer-reviewed research has reported a relationship between statin use and cataracts. Statins being associated with serious adverse effects has nothing to do with fake news. These are facts.

To be sure, more physicians would agree with Dr. Navar than Dr. Brownstein, but should treatments be dictated by those on one side of the argument? After all, due to human variability, statins may both save some lives and impair or kill other people.

With some doctors questioning whether to prescribe statins for everyone, there is a large financial incentive to stifle debate.

Can you imagine a future government-controlled health care system, completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry, mandating statins for everyone? I can.

There are good reasons to be concerned that we are losing access to information with which to evaluate opposing sides of health issues, like the statin debate. Already Google is “burning” sites that question the medical orthodoxy about statins., operated by Dr. Joseph Mercola, is one of the most trafficked websites providing alternative views to medical orthodoxy. If I were researching statins, I would certainly read several of the numerous essays questioning statin use and the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Essays at usually provide references to medical studies. Personally, since Dr. Mercola sells supplements and I am a supplement skeptic, I read his essays—like I read all medical essays—with a grain of salt.

Dr. Kelly Brogan is a psychiatrist who has helped thousands of women find alternatives to psychotropic drugs prescribed to treat depression and anxiety. In her book, A Mind of Your Own: The Truth About Depression and How Women Can Heal Their Bodies to Reclaim Their Lives, Brogan reports that one of every seven women and 25 percent of women in their 40s and 50s are on such drugs. She explains,

Although I was trained to think that antidepressants are to the depressed (and to the anxious, panicked, OCD, IBS, PTSD, bulimic, anorexic, and so on) what eyeglasses are to the poor-sighted, I no longer buy into this bill of goods.

For their unorthodox views, Dr. Brogan, Dr. Mercola, and others like them are treated as medical heretics. Dr. Brogan and Dr. Mercola have documented (here and here) how a change in Google’s search engine algorithm has essentially ended traffic to their websites.

From time to time, Google updates algorithms determining how search results are displayed; there is nothing inherently nefarious in such actions. Google has achieved its market position by doing a better job than other search engines.

According to Dr. Mercola, before Google’s most recent June 19 algorithm update,

Google search results were based on crowdsource relevance. An article would ascend in rank based on the number of people who clicked on it.

After their June 19 algorithm update, Google is relying more on human “quality” raters. Google instructs raters that the lowest ratings should go to a “YMYL page with inaccurate potentially dangerous medical advice.” YMYL stands for “Your Money or Your Life.” Google says,

We have very high Page Quality rating standards for YMYL pages because low-quality YMYL pages could potentially negatively impact users’ happiness, health, financial stability, or safety.

Does that sound reasonable? If a site argues for treatments other than the medical orthodoxy then, by definition, the site can arouse readers’ cause for concern and, for some people, unhappiness. Do we really want Google to assume the role of Bradbury’s firemen?

Google wants to protect you from conflicting opinions. And if you don’t think that’s a problem, imagine sometime in the future when searching for information on monetary policy you only find results for Modern Monetary Theory.

Google thinks its intention to “do the right thing” is enough to prevent abuses; some Google employees would disagree.

Google is not eliminating access to alternative health pages; it is making it harder to find them. Typical health searches will still generate plenty of “facts,” just not conflicting facts. In Fahrenheit 451 Captain Beatty explains the government’s strategy: “Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year.”

Instead of “conflicting theory,” Captain Beatty explains the strategy is to “cram” the people “full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information.”

Filled with “facts,” Captain Beatty explains, people will “feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving.” Beatty assures Montag that his fireman role is noble. Firemen are helping to keep the world happy.

The important thing for you to remember, Montag, is we’re the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you and I and the others. We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought. We have our fingers in the dike. Hold steady. Don’t let the torrent of melancholy and drear philosophy drown our world. We depend on you. I don’t think you realize how important you are, to our happy world as it stands now.

The only way Google will maintain its dominance is to continue to meet the needs of consumers. Whether Google continues to “burn” websites is up to us. Google will continue to sort out unorthodox views as long as “we” the consumer continue to rely on Google’s search engine.


Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. To receive Barry’s essays subscribe at Mindset Shifts.


Huffington Post: Keep Your Kids Away From Their Pro-Life, Trump-Supporting Grandparents

Twitter suspends account of top GOP Senator over video of liberals shouting obscenities at his home.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The ‘Transgender Revolution’: Sexual Anarchy in the Catholic Church, Boy Scouts of America and Public Schools

What is the Transgender Revolution? John Horvat II has described what we are seeing in America and across Western Civilization today as “sexual anarchy.”

Sexual Anarchy

In the column This Is What Comes After the Transgender Revolution

Thus, the present phase of the Sexual Revolution is the transgender agenda—a step that was proposed immediately after the imposition of same-sex “marriage.”

The transgender agenda allows people of one sex to mutilate themselves surgically and chemically to appear like the other sex. It also permits people to self-identify as any number of imaginary “genders” that express their psychological state. Finally, transgender activists seek to get the government to recognize, finance and legally protect their declared state. It even threatens those who refuse to accept the charade with penalties. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

The Church Militant has been documenting the Transgender Revolution and sexual anarchy within the Catholic Church. Michael Voris, founder of Church Militant and a former homosexual, did a faith based investigation video expose titled “Homosexuality.” Church Militant notes, “Persons with same sex attractions deserve our respect and compassion. But the militant gay movement’s message that ‘gay’ is good is completely false. This lie is confusing society and hurting the individuals themselves.” [Emphasis added]


In an August 7, 2019 column by Corky Siemaszko titled Boy Scouts have a ‘pedophile epidemic’ and are hiding hundreds in its ranks, lawyers claim shows the moral, social and financial impact of the Transgender Revolution and sexual anarchy. Siemaszko reports:

The Boy Scouts of America are continuing to cover-up a “pedophilia epidemic within their organization,” a group of lawyers alleged Tuesday in a new lawsuit.

The Abused in Scouting lawyers said they’ve identified 350 previously unknown scoutmasters and volunteers who allegedly preyed on boys — and whose names were not known to law enforcement or in the BSA’s internal database, which critics have called “perversion files.”

“You can’t look at these files and not come to the conclusion that this was a massive problem that was hidden,” attorney Tim Kosnoff said at a press conference.

Read more.

The Boy Scouts of America placed transgenders in leadership positions. The result is massive lawsuits that may bankrupt an organization because it violated the 12th Scout Law:

“A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.” [Emphasis added]

Social media giants like Facebook and Google and public schools have embraced the Transgender Revolution. Social media sites allow individuals to choose their preferred gender pronoun. In Virginia a high school teacher was fired for using the wrong gender pronoun. In Colorado the Christian owned Masterpiece Cakeshop was sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple. In Canada a salon has been forced to closed for refusing to remove the hair on a transgender man’s genitals.

The next phase of Sexual Anarchy

Horvat warns, “To understand the Sexual Revolution, one must see it as a process leading to anarchy and nihilism. Its revolutionaries will always be searching for ever more anarchical manifestations of sexuality. They will always give free rein to unbridled passions on the path to self-annihilation. All taboos must be overturned. Everyone must accept all behaviors, which must be given protection of the law.” [Emphasis added]

There is a movement to add pedophiles to the LGBTQ movement by redefining them as “minor attracted persons.” The sexual anarchy can only lead to the destruction of the traditional nuclear family. Where anything goes so goes the nuclear family.

We are also seeing governments lowering the minimum age of consent, Hollywood pushing polygamy and unbridled passions in films like Midsommar about a pagan cult. If you thought it couldn’t get worse we now have the rise of sex robots (i.e. like those in the original Blade Runner and Austin Powers’ sexbots). The Glazov Gang  interviewed Barak Lurie on The Rise of the Sex Machines, where he reveals how many women will soon lose their husbands to sex robots.

Gird yourself to a time of debauchery not seen since the fall of the Roman Empire. We are now in a dangerous even deadly period of sexual anarchy.

The New York Post reported that, “Dayton mass shooter Connor Betts was reportedly the lead singer of a misogynistic “pornogrind” metal band called Menstrual Munchies — which released songs about rape, murder, necrophilia and other gruesome acts against women.

© All rights reserved.

NYT Gives Democrats Marching Orders On El Paso Shooting

It is to be expected that Democrats will coldly attempt to score political points from the tragic shootings in Texas and Ohio. Integrity-free politicians will do anything to get elected or stay in office.

The combined shootings over the same weekend will predictably create a call for more gun laws that would do nothing to reduce violence or even gun violence in the United States, as is painfully clear in our ongoing lab testing between states and cities with strict gun laws and those with very few.

But the El Paso shooting will get most of the attention, because it combines the left’s loathing of guns with its reflexive use of the word-weapon “racism” all the time. El Paso is a springboard for blaming all Republicans for guns and blaming President Trump for creating a violent anti-immigrant atmosphere.

And inconveniently, the shooter in Ohio was a known supporter of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. His Twitter biography reads, “he/him / anime fan / metalhead / leftist / i’m going to hell and i’m not coming back.” And he supported strict guns laws! All of which means this will be forgotten as quickly as the shooter who shot up the Republican softball team and was a rabid Bernie Sanders supporter.

Ever the opportunist, Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke jumped on this immediately on Face the Nation Sunday. “I’m saying that President Trump has a lot to do with what happened in El Paso yesterday,” he said. Trump “sows the kind of fear, the kind of reaction that we saw in El Paso yesterday.”

But the New York Times, which all leftists and Democrat political leaders read and take cues from, essentially wrote the party talking points for them, right from the “news analysis” lead:

At campaign rallies before last year’s midterm elections, President Trump repeatedly warned that America was under attack by immigrants heading for the border. “You look at what is marching up, that is an invasion!” he declared at one rally. “That is an invasion!”

Nine months later, a 21-year-old white man is accused of opening fire in a Walmart in El Paso, killing 20 people and injuring dozens more after writing a manifesto railing against immigration and announcing that “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

There you go, Democrats. It’s spelled out with citations for you by your allies at the New York Times.

Talking Point: Trump used the word “invasion” and the shooter used the word “invasion.”

President Trump said Sunday after the shootings: “Hate has no place in our country, and we’re going to take care of it.” On Monday, he tweeted:

“We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain. Likewise for those so seriously wounded. We can never forget them, and those many who came before them. Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying…this legislation with desperately needed immigration reform. We must have something good, if not GREAT, come out of these two tragic events!”

But here’s how the New York Times summed it up for readers:

“Hate has no place in our country, and we’re going to take care of it,” the president said, declining to elaborate but promising to speak more on Monday morning. He made no mention of white supremacy or the El Paso manifesto, but instead focused on what he called “a mental illness problem.”

This is a beautiful example of why Trump needs Twitter and every Republican needs communications outlets that bypass the Democrat media establishment. Does anyone even doubt that in 2019, with zero culture of white supremacy, that anyone who believes in such garbage has mental issues? And just because President Obama would dive in with very few facts doesn’t mean Trump should.

Talking Point: Trump refuses to acknowledge his role in whipping up hate. 

What’s really interesting is that in the shooter’s manifesto, he states clearly that his views on immigration “predate Trump,” because even a deranged mass murderer knows what the media and Democrats are going to do with his evil act.

The Times acknowledges the “predate Trump” statement but dismisses it. “But if Mr. Trump did not originally inspire the gunman, he has brought into the mainstream polarizing ideas and people once consigned to the fringes of American society.”

Perhaps the Times has forgotten, but immigration has been one of the most polarizing debates we’ve had for many years. The Times stopped covering it much — and nothing on kids in cages at the border — during President Obama’s eight years, but it turns out that reality still happens even if the Times does not report it. Illegal immigration has been divisive for decades and tens of millions of Americans’ frustration had reached a boiling point long before Trump. It’s part of what got him elected.

But here’s the summary, which you can expect to hear coming out of Democrats’ mouths.

“While other leaders have expressed concern about border security and the costs of illegal immigration, Mr. Trump has filled his public speeches and Twitter feed with sometimes false, fear-stoking language even as he welcomed to the White House a corps of hard-liners, demonizers and conspiracy theorists shunned by past presidents of both parties. Because of this, Mr. Trump is ill equipped to provide the kind of unifying, healing force that other presidents projected in times of national tragedy.”

The Times conveniently forgets how President Obama stoked racial animus after Ferguson, after Baltimore and after Trayvon Martin. Trump may be ill-equipped, but Obama proved repeatedly he was. The Times is silent on that point, because the actual point of their coverage is to set the stage for Democrats to attack Trump and all Republicans.

But this: “he welcomed to the White House a corps of hard-liners, demonizers and conspiracy theorists shunned by past presidents of both parties.” The Times does not name these people, nor point out the haters previous presidents have invited because of political alliances.But it’s a politically useful salvo.

Talking Point: Trump has even invited racist anti-immigration hard-liners to the White House.

El Paso Mayor Dee Margo got it right when, after CNN’s Jake Tapper repeatedly tried to get him to link the shooting with Trump’s language: “I’m focusing on El Paso. There’s evil in this world and it’s unfortunate.”

Don’t expect to get that reality check from the Democrats or their media.

RELATED ARTICLE: Five outrageous reactions to Dayton and El Paso tragedies from Democrats and mainstream media

RELATED VIDEO: President Trump’s remarks on the weekend shootings in Texas and Ohio.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

How Republicans will take back the House, keep the Senate and re-elect Donald J. Trump

“When most people think about the Democratic party, they think of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). That may be a good thing for AOC, but it’s terrible news for the DNC. Heading into 2020, the worst scenario for Donald Trump’s opponents is to be defined by a 29-year-old socialist with half-baked, radical views, light years away from heartland America. But according to a pile of new surveys from Axios to Heritage Action, that’s a gamble too many liberals are willing to take.” – Family Research Council, 2020: It Don’t Mean a Thing If You Ain’t Got Those Swings.

While the 2020 presidential primaries are just getting started with a large field of Democrats vying for the nomination, there are key indicators that it’s the Republicans who are in control on policy issues.

Political advisor to former President Obama David Axelrod said on CNN after the first round of debates:

It does seem as if you’re running for president that you ought to take into consideration what the country wants.

What Does America Want?

Heritage Action for America released the results of three opinion polls conducted across the nation in 2019. Each poll built upon the results of the previous to provide a targeted look at what animates voters in strategic areas across the country.

Here are items that Americans want:

  1. Voters want the border crisis fixed. Heritage found 53% nationally and 63% in swing states, including 62% of independent voters,  believe “The migration problem at the U.S. border is a national emergency.”
  2. Voters want to keep their private healthcare insurance. In Congressional Battleground states 76% reject a single-payer system, including 66% of Independent voters. This includes 65% of swing-state voters and 68% of Independents.
  3. Voters want to save babies who survive an abortion. When asked “Do you support or oppose requiring doctors to provide medical care to infants who survive an abortion?” 76% of voters and 76% of independents said yes.

NOTE: On the issue of immigration the following questions were asked,

“When it comes to illegal immigration, which of the following do you think is the biggest challenge illegal immigrants pose to America?” Voters answered: 37% Overuse Social Services, 7% Take Jobs Away, 7% Undermine Culture, 4% Commit Violent Crimes and 13% All of the Above.

“If more legal immigrants are admitted to the United States, should priority be given to immigrants based on their skills totals or should family members in our country?” Voters answered: 51% Skills and 29% Family.

What America Does Not Want.

  1. Socialism. Heritage found nationally 61% of voters and 57% of independents and 65% in swing states plus 68% of Independents believe that, “Socialism is a bad economic system that leads to bigger government, less freedom, worse economic conditions, and more welfare dependency.”
  2. Political Correctness. When asked, “Do you think that political correctness is a major problem, minor problem, or no problem at all?” 73% of voters nationally and 50% of Independents answered “yes” it is a problem.
  3. Outsourcing and automation. The survey statement was, “There are a significant number of jobs and careers that will not exist in America in 10 years due to automation and outsourcing.” In swing states 83% of voters and independents agreed with the statement. In Congressional Battleground states 82% of voters and independents agreed with the statement.

NOTE: On education the following question was asked:

” In general, do you think a four-year college degree is worth the price of college tuition today? Voters answered: 72% No and 20% Yes.

Read the full Heritage Action for America report by clicking here.

In the Wealth Management column 5 Reasons Trump Will Be Reelected (And What Wealth Managers Must Know) Scott Martin wrote:

Between the electoral map and a friendly Fed, Democratic contenders are going to have a hard time simply keeping out of each other’s way. 

Bad polling numbers and a stagnant approval rating are one thing. When push comes to shove, voters have historically gone with the candidate they believe will boost their finances the best.

After all, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Right now, with GDP growth tracking above 2%, interest rates falling, tax cuts and full employment, the economy points to four more years.

Otherwise, the Democrats have got to make a compelling case for why a vote against Trump isn’t ultimately a quixotic gesture built more on sentiment than self interest.

Right now it looks like he’s going to win.

Martin lists 5 key factors:

  1. A relaxed Fed is the incumbent’s friend.
  2. The electoral map swings red.
  3. Too many Democrats, not enough messaging.
  4. Too many Democrats, not enough fund raising.
  5. Nobody cares about the future.

The only candidate for President of the United States who understands what America wants, and doesn’t want, is Donald J. Trump. His strength is in his policies and the visible outcomes of his policies. As former President Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

As Mr. Martin notes, “Too many votes in California and New York don’t matter if Florida swings and the Rust Belt votes like it did in 2016. Trump could lose the popular election by 5 million votes and still stay in the White House.”

Democrats are increasingly in la, la land with their socialist rhetoric. Watch as Bill Maher roots for recession to get Trump out of office:

While their fringe base is with them that will not keep their House majority, change the Senate majority or take the White House.

© All rights reserved.


Senate Ups Judicial Confirmations Despite Democrats’ Obstruction

Trump Single-Handedly Changes the Political Calculus

Bill Maher: Democrats Are ‘Blowing It’ With Open Borders, Free College Talk

RELATED VIDEO: Pro-Jihad 13-year-old Girl Interviews Congresswoman Tlaib.

Sign Our Petition to Designate Antifa as a Terror Organization

President Trump tweeted over the weekend that he is considering designating Antifa as a terror organization.

Sign Our Petition Asking the President to Designate Antifa as a Terror Org by clicking here

Trump’s tweet comes on the heels of a resolution proposed on July 19, 2019 Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy to designate Antifa a terrorist group.

“Antifa is a terrorist organization composed of hateful, intolerant radicals who pursue their extreme agenda through aggressive violence,” Cruz said.

As noted by the president, Antifa is a radical Leftist group known for using violence to propel their agenda. Most recently, they targeted and attacked conservative journalist Any Ngo — among others — at a demonstration in Portland, Oregon, sending Ngo to the hospital with a brain bleed.

The violent group also bashed heads of other conservative demonstrators, including two elderly men who were severely hurt by Antifa members.

Antifa has a history of using violence against those who disagree with them. They previously commandeered streets in downtown Portland while the police were given orders to stand down, a decision supported by the mayor. At one point, activists chased down a 74-year old man after protesters pounded on his car and broke a window. A woman in a wheelchair was verbally harassed.

At another demonstration, Antifa was even more violent:

Antifa was also responsible for the 2017 violent demonstration and subsequent riots in Berkeley. Its members were reacting to conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos being invited to speak on campus. During the riots, Antifa members smashed the windows of a Marine Corps recruiting office after sucker-punching someone who voiced opposition to them.

Sign Our Petition Asking the President to Designate Antifa as a Terror Org by clicking here

Please share this petition on all your social media accounts and email lists


Cruz Calls for Investigations of Antifa, Portland Mayor

Conservative Journalist Andy Ngo Suffers Brain Bleed After Antifa Attack

CAIR Joins Antifa Supporters in Mocking Beaten Journalist

More Heads Bashed by Antifa in Portland

MEN AND ABORTION: The Paternal Paradox

“No uterus, no opinion? Not so fast. Men’s roles in abortion are varied, and society’s standards for fathers and men’s voices are contradictory and complex. To understand their involvement in abortion, and the repercussions that result, we need to examine the paternal paradox…” Sarah Quale

No uterus, no opinion

It isn’t too often that men get a say. Not in the deaths of their own children, unless of course, they support the mother’s decision to abort them. Not in the case of Ryan Magers, the father in Alabama who is suing the abortion facility and pharmaceutical company in the wrongful death of his aborted child, who Alabama law and the Alabama Supreme Court declare is a person with rights. Just yesterday, Judge Chris Comer heard arguments for and against dismissal of Ryan’s case, which he declined to throw out.

Over the past several years, the abortion industry and its feminist allies have run an aggressive campaign against fathers like Ryan, to bring more men into their movement, right alongside the “no uterus, no opinion” mantra. While this seems like a contradiction on the surface, there is a consistent, underlying criterion for membership in the #BroChoice in-crowd. You must unequivocally and unabashedly champion legal abortion.

On Twitter in May, feminist author and Vox media host Liz Plank called for men to respond with stories of how legal abortion benefits them. Responses to her controversial tweet varied.

According to #BroChoice men, who reflect an oversexualized culture that discourages chivalry and responsibility, women have the absolute right to “do whatever they want with their own body.” But there are rules.

  1. Bodily autonomy especially applies to a woman who enters an abortion facility.
  2. Bodily autonomy doesn’t apply to a woman in a dorm room, at a party, or in Hollywood.

Why is that?

Because abortion frees men, not women.

Abortion frees men from responsibility and commitment. It frees them to be totally unaccountable to a woman’s heart and to any life that’s created from his sexual relationship with her. But there is a cold truth that remains.

Every aborted child has a father.

The six roles men typically play

When it comes to abortion, the father is typically involved in one of six ways:

  1. He supports the abortion and usually brings her to the appointment and/or pays for it.
  2. He pressures her into having the abortion, sometimes threatening harm or loss of support.
  3. He abandons her and the decision altogether.
  4. He passively leaves the decision to her, often because he is confused or feels voiceless.
  5. He fights for the life of his child, but fails to convince her not to abort.
  6. He doesn’t even know about the pregnancy or the abortion until later, or possibly never.

Out of this complexity of roles springs the paternal paradox, described in brief by another response to Liz Plank’s tweet.

Here’s what this paradox looks like a little more broadly:

  • When women have an abortion, it’s viewed as an exclamation of their “reproductive rights” and freedom from male oppression.
  • When men pressure women to abort, they are labeled controlling, abusive, and oppressive.
  • When women ignore a man’s objection to an abortion, men have no legal recourse for the death of their own children.
  • But when women allow their children to be born, men are legally obligated to take financial responsibility.

To further understand this paradox, we must also consider what research shows about how men’s involvement, or lack thereof, impacts an abortion decision.

The father’s impact on decision making and outcomes

Ever since Roe v Wade, academic journals and research institutes have published studies on the reasons women have abortions. More recently, inquiries have focused on how lack of support and coercion impact the abortion decision and the effect coercion has on post-abortive emotional outcomes. Here is a small glimpse into this ever-growing body of research:

Sources of pressure from the father of the child can range from threats of abandonment to domestic abuse, and even homicide, which is one of the leading causes of death of pregnant women.  Other sources of pressure come from:

  • Parents of minor children that fear a pregnancy will bring shame on the family
  • A shame-based or secretive environment within a woman’s church
  • Counseling that’s rushed and driven by abortion profits
  • Doctors who insist women abort pre-born children with poor or terminal diagnoses
  • Traffickers in their attempts to control or punish their victims
  • Situations in which children are conceived in rape or incest, as Jennifer Christie, a mother from rape, can attest.

Aside from coercion, several surveys report that single motherhood and concerns about current relationships also contribute significantly to the decision to abort.

We can reasonably conclude that, in playing the roles of abortion supporter, coercer, abandoner, and passive bystander, men contribute directly to the confusion, fear, and uncertainty that often accompany a woman’s unexpected pregnancy and impact her decision to abort.  So much for “no uterus, no opinion.”

A shift in our understanding

Up until recently, the pro-life answer to “no uterus, no opinion” has been a simple historical reminder that one doesn’t have to be a victim of an injustice to stand up against it. The South’s argument for slavery was essentially “no slaves/no opinion,” yet scores of white abolitionists stood against the horrors perpetrated against those of African descent.

Similarly, the fight for women’s suffrage surged forward to obliterate the “no property/no say” argument. Yet there is a rich history of “suffragents” who helped make the right to vote (and own property) a reality for women.

But the time has come to move beyond this historical rebuttal, as empirical evidence is beginning to show that men are directly and deeply impacted by abortion, even though they aren’t the ones on the abortion table. Here are a few of the organizations that showcase this work:

  • The Alliance for Post-Abortion Research and Training (APART) houses current research papers, literature reviews, clinical reports, and academic publications on this subject. On the Fact Sheets page of their website, select the Men and Abortion tab.
  • The Life Issues Institute’s Men & Abortion Network (MAN) initiative provides studies on the effects of abortion on men and links to counseling and mentoring services.
  • The Abortion and Men area of the Elliot Institute’s website includes peer-reviewed research, academic articles, and post-abortive healing resources for men.

Anecdotal evidence is also growing and inspiring new ministries to help men work through the deaths of the children they couldn’t or wouldn’t protect. For example:

Lost fatherhood and God’s design

Every person who reports feelings of regret after abortion experiences his or her grief in different ways, yet a growing body of evidence here, too, suggests common behavior patterns and psychological symptomsassociated with post-abortion trauma. What’s not often considered, however, is post-abortion trauma in the context of God-designed gender.

Men are created by God to be leaders (Exodus 18:21, 1 Corinthians 11:3), and they are called by God to be honorable (1 Peter 3:7) and sacrificial (Ephesians 5:25-27). Deep in the spirit of a man is an innate need to be respected; to protect his loved ones from harm. To deny a man this core need and fundamental design is to strip him of his natural, God-ordained purpose. The result is a drifting powerlessness that can take its toll on a man’s self-image, causing a profound sense of loss and hopelessness. It can also bring excessive guilt and shame, fear, depression, sexual dysfunction, alcohol and drug abuse, significant damage to his peer relationships, and even suicide.

Men suffer greatly, but differently, from abortion. Yet our society continues to deny there is any suffering or regret from anyone at all.

If you or someone you know is experiencing emotional and spiritual trauma as the father of an aborted child, please reach out using the resources provided above. Men, like women, deserve to replace the death connection abortion creates with a life connection that forgiveness and healing through Jesus Christ brings.

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.