Racism, Sexual Assault Hypocrisy, & Mob Rule: The Planned Parenthood Approach

Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion company. It is also one of the most powerful liberal advocacy groups in the country.

That advocacy didn’t prevent Brett Kavanaugh from getting on the U.S. Supreme Court. But it did show corporate backers of Planned Parenthood that they are standing with racism, sexual assault hypocrisy, and mob rule.


This Tweet says it all, and the Rewire piece goes straight into wondering why white women aren’t dedicated supporters of liberal accusations of sexual assault and Democratic Party nominees named Hillary Clinton (no irony was included in the piece related to sexual assault accusations and the spouse of Hillary Clinton). The piece also says, “Throughout history, white women—including those who identify as feminists—have routinely thrown people of color under the bus to advance their own interests.”

Got it? White women are racist and self-interested, according to Planned Parenthood. (As opposed to Planned Parenthood, which uses half-a-billion taxpayer dollars to slaughter unborn babies for, what, altruism?) Additionally, white women allegedly vote how their husbands want them to.

To put it another way — Planned Parenthood and liberals at Rewire want women to make their own decisions, unless those decisions go against liberal preferences.

Hating Sexual Assault When It’s Convenient

According to Planned Parenthood when it retweeted NARAL, “we believe survivors.”

This is convenient for Planned Parenthood. During political campaigns and debates, it believes survivors. When it comes to their own abortion centers, Planned Parenthood has no problem covering up sexual assaultEven for those who abuse minors.

Mob Rule Instead of Republic Representation

Democracy has often been described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. This is why America is a representative republic, with competing interests in our political system to ensure that the wolves don’t always agree — and, thus, Americans could be free.

Planned Parenthood appears to be ignorant of this basic piece of American history. Check out these Tweets, the last two which were retweeted by Planned Parenthood:

Putting Politics Ahead of America

We want to make two last points about Planned Parenthood’s actions here. First, in supporting the Women’s March organization, Planned Parenthood is aligned with an activist group which is so anti-conservative and so incompetent that its initial anti-Kavanaugh press release had “XX” instead of Kavanaugh’s name because it didn’t matter who President Trump nominated. The Women’s March organizers were always going to take this route of aggressive and unethical opposition.

More importantly, Planned Parenthood’s support for mob rule clearly only applies when in support of the abortion giant’s goals. It has supported so-called “buffer zones” across the country — here’s just one example — which prevent pro-life activists from using free speech to advocate against abortion.

Yet corporations continue to blindly stand with Planned Parenthood. This cannot continue. It is long past time for corporations to put their money towards hiring Americans instead of killing them, and towards giving raises instead of deadly political activism.

Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Shutterstock.

VIDEO: Andrew Gillum – Job Interview – Florida Election 2018

The United West team “creates” Comrade Andrew Gillum’s Job interview for CEO of 80 billion dollar company.

Clearly, no one in their right mind would hire Gillum to run their candy store, but the crazy socialists will vote for him to run the state of Florida!

SHARE THIS to your friends and VOTE INTELLIGENTLY on November 6, 2018!

Andrew Gillum Endorses Antisemites – MUST WATCH!

Democrat candidate for Florida Governor, Andrew Gillum says he’s pro-Israel, but he just says that to get Jewish money for his campaign.

He endorses, and is endorsed by, a radical, anti-Israel movement.

“These Vulnerable Creatures”: A Review of “Gosnell”

Brad Miner reviews “Gosnell,” the dramatic film about the arrest and trial of the abortionist who was “America’s Biggest Serial Killer.” 

There have been notorious murderers brought down for reasons other than their most horrific crimes. Al Capone, mob boss, was felled by tax evasion; Dr. Kermit Gosnell, abortionist, by illegally selling prescriptions for painkillers.

I’d be surprised if there are any readers of The Catholic Thing who don’t know who Gosnell is, but just in case: he’s the former operator of a Philadelphia abortuary, who was a specialist in late-term and “partial-birth” abortions. He would regularly take babies born alive (his clinic’s procedures were slapdash at best) and cut their spinal cords at the neck.

Al Capone was a better person.

Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer is in some ways like an hour-and-three-quarter length episode of Law and Oder: SVU– although the best-ever episode. The director of the film (also one of its stars) is Nick Searcy. Here he plays Gosnell’s defense attorney and manages to be convincing enough so that – even though we know he will lose the case – there’s still dramatic tension in the trial sequences.

Opposing him in court is an assistant district attorney played by Sarah Jane Morris. Ms. Morris is the film’s true star and its dramatic hub. I cry easily and did several times watching this film. Morris is an actress of the first order and her eyes show depth of feeling, whether of anger or sorrow or compassion, and it was she who made me tear up.

The levels of evil in this story are manifold. It starts, of course, with the indifference to human life inherent in abortion itself. Yet you could say – after the familiar pro-abortion mantra – that legal abortions should at least be safe and rare, whereas at Gosnell’s “clinic” they were anything but safe, were very frequent, and many weren’t even legal, occurring after the time limit prescribed by Pennsylvania law.

All this came to light because of a raid on Gosnell’s clinic by the Philadelphia P.D., the FBI, and the DEA looking for evidence related to those painkiller prescriptions.

During the raid, Gosnell is called into a procedure room to aid a patient “in distress.” One of the Philly cops, James Wood (Dean Cain), sees the patient sitting up, her hands on her belly: she’s clearly full-term. This can’t be right. . . . It’s just a glimpse, but it was enough to make me realize Mr. Searcy is as good a director as he is an actor.

Similarly, there’s a very nice sequence of scenes featuring an ambitious blogger, Molly Mullaney (Cynthia Fiallo), with bright red streaks in her hair and the requite tattoos, suggesting a far-Left pro-choicer, which is true. But she’s honest.

And there is some excellent balance between scenes, as, for example, when Detectives Wood and Stark (AlonZo Rachel) discover Gosnell’s collection of . . . baby feet and a later scene in which the prosecutor (Ms. Morris) plays with her own baby’s tootsies and, pro-choice though she is, “has a moment.”

Later, drinking something strong both to deaden her emotions (unsuccessfully) and to loosen her tongue, she explains to her shocked husband what investigators have discovered. “I’m gonna get that bastard,” she says.

The District Attorney (played by Michael Beach) is the first to pronounce Gosnell the worst serial killer in American history and warns his team that the courthouse will be swarming with reporters, all of whom will make this case (about the hottest of hot-button issues) a nightmare for the prosecutors. But when they arrive for the trial, only Molly the blogger is there, although that will change – thanks to her.

Gosnell is rated PG-13, which rating should put at ease any fear that the film is exploitive of the gore associated with abortion. To the extent that there is gore, it’s verbal. The horrors of the abortuary are described, not shown. Normally that would be bad cinema, where the rule is: Show, don’t tell. Here it works.

Gosnell, as portrayed by Earl Billings, lacks “affect,” as perhaps the bad doctor does – so much so that you might have thought he would escape conviction with an insanity defense. His Gosnell is ever-smiling and always in denial. “I look at all the women I’ve treated,” he says proudly, “as if they were my own daughter.”

Much of what’s in the film is based on trial transcripts, but there are some scenes that seem less fact-based – even unlikely. In the morgue, examining the bodies of the largest baby corpses recovered from Gosnell’s clinic of horrors, the medical examiner hands a scalpel to our heroine, the woman prosecutor, so she can cut into a skull to see if the brain is or is not intact (intact would mean the child was born alive and then murdered). This seems unlikely – a violation of medical and legal ethics. But it’s meant to be a kind of “crossing-the-Rubicon” moment for her. She’s pro-choice, after all.

Gosnell is not preachy. It’s fact-based. Janine Turner appears as a “respectable” abortion provider testifying for the prosecution, who – in cross-examination – says she has performed 30,000 abortions. As much as any line in the film, that one brought me up short. It’s that staggering number, of course, but it’s also because Ms. Turner, so stately and beautiful and composed, delivers the line so matter-of-factly. What she describes would make the film R-rated if it were shown.

Earlier, as the murderer’s trial is set to begin, a judge asks Gosnell if he has anything to say. He expresses concern for the rare turtles he keeps at his clinic. The judge instructs the prosecutor to see to the turtles’ welfare, because the judge takes the Endangered Species Act very seriously: “You are going to have to figure out how to deal with these vulnerable creatures.”

As mentioned, Gosnell is rated PG-13. Only one scene (in the morgue) involves blood – a liver autopsy. The teleplay is by Andrew Klavan; the screenplay is by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinny and is based upon their bestselling book. There are some interesting cameos, including the actual prosecutor, Christine Wechsler, and our friend and former contributor, Austin Ruse, as one of the late-to-the-trial press corps.

Sarah Jane Morris

Brad Miner

Brad Miner

Brad Miner is senior editor of The Catholic Thing, senior fellow of the Faith & Reason Institute, and Board Secretary of Aid to the Church In Need USA. He is a former Literary Editor of National Review. His new book, Sons of St. Patrick, written with George J. Marlin, is now on sale. The Compleat Gentleman, is available on audio.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Most Important Movie You’ve Never Heard Of

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Catholic Thing. Republished with permission. Copyright 2018 The Catholic Thing. All Rights Reserved. Site designed by Hyperdo Media. Developed by Fiat Insight

Cuban Doctors Say They Are Treated Like Slaves

You are trained in Cuba and our education is free. Health care is free, but at what price? You wind up paying for it your whole life.” –Dr. Yaili Jiménez Gutierrez

In 2013, the World Health Organization brokered a deal through which Cuba would export doctors to Brazil to serve in its poorest and most remote areas. Yet as Brazil began to reap the benefits of improved care and decreased mortality rates, the Cuban doctors began to see their home’s regime in a new light.

“When you leave Cuba for the first time, you discover many things that you had been blind to,” says Yaili Jiménez Gutierrez, one of the program’s doctors, in a New York Times profile. “There comes a time when you get tired of being a slave.”

The Cuban doctors began noticing the disparity in their government’s “take” from the Brazilian government—nearly four times their own salary—as well as the higher wages and greater freedoms enjoyed by their fellow “export doctors” from other participating countries.

“We began to see that the conditions for the other doctors were totally different,” Jiménez explains. “They could be with their family, bring their kids. The salaries were much higher.”

In response, more than 150 Cuban doctors have now filed lawsuits in Brazilian courts, claiming equality protections under Brazil’s constitution and requesting that they remain in the country as independent contractors with the ability to earn a full salary.

The New York Times summarizes the situation as follows:

The seeds of the rebellion were planted a year ago in a conversation between a Cuban doctor and a clergyman in a remote village in northeastern Brazil.

Anis Deli Grana de Carvalho, a doctor from Cuba, was coming to the end of her three‑year medical assignment. But having married a Brazilian man, she wanted to stay and keep working. The pastor was outraged to learn that, under the terms of their employment, Cuban doctors earn only about a quarter of the amount the Brazilian government pays Cuba for their services.

…In late September of last year, she sued in federal court to work as an independent contractor. Within weeks, scores of other Cuban doctors followed Dr. Grana’s lead and filed suits in Brazilian courts.

As for how the Cuban government has responded thus far, some have been allowed to keep their jobs or return home, while others were fired and face exile:

Late last year, judges issued temporary injunctions in some cases, granting Cuban doctors the right to remain as independent contractors, earning full wages. One federal judge in the capital denounced the Cuban contracts as a “form of slave labor” that could not be tolerated.

But the federal judge who handled Dr. Grana’s case ruled against her, finding that allowing Cuban doctors to walk away from their contracts posed “undue risks in the political and diplomatic spheres.”

Soon after the first injunctions were issued, Cuban supervisors in Brazil summoned doctors who had filed suits and fired them on the spot, several doctors said. Each was given the chance to get on a plane to Cuba within 24 hours — or face exile for eight years.

The costs have been high for those who left family behind in order to pursue a better livelihood or improve their prospects upon returning home. But for many, the risks have been well worth it.

“It’s sad to leave your family and friends and your homeland,” says Maireilys Álvarez Rodríguez, a doctor who sued the government but managed to keep her job and bring her children to Brazil. “But here we’re in a country where you’re free, where no one asks you where you’re going, or tells you what you have to do. In Cuba, your life is dictated by the government.”

We routinely hear critics of capitalism decry the supposed injustices of free wages set by free markets driven by the actions free people. Without the steady hand of heavy government control and redistribution—we are told—the ideals of equality and justice will never prevail.

Yet note how, in the present case, we see doctors from Cuba—a land that supposedly places excessive priority on “equality”—running from their government to the Brazilian constitution for equality protections. The irony is painful and shows the illusory nature of an equality based only on material outputs.

Without true freedom, self-constructed, arbitrary, materialistic notions about “equality” quickly devolve, crowding out new growth and creating other disparities in the process, whether among neighbors abroad or among workers at home.

Likewise, when given a taste of freedom, the view gets clearer, and the supposed communist ideals of “equality” are quickly placed in the context of what’s truly at the driver’s seat: control.

This article was reprinted with permission from the Acton Institute.

Joseph Sunde

Joseph Sunde

Joseph Sunde is an associate editor and writer for the Acton Institute. His work has appeared in venues such as The Federalist, First Things, Intellectual Takeout, The City, The Christian Post, The Stream, Patheos, LifeSiteNews, Charisma News, The Green Room, Juicy Ecumenism, Ethika Politika, Made to Flourish, and the Center for Faith and Work. Joseph resides in Minneapolis, Minnesota with his wife and four children.

U.S. Attorney in Colorado may shut down pot shops. Here’s why.

U.S. Attorney Bob Troyer

Writing in the Denver Post, U.S. Attorney in Colorado, Bob Troyer, says you may see his counterparts begin to criminally prosecute licensed marijuana businesses and their investors. Colorado legalized marijuana in 2012 but has not gotten what proponents promised. Here’s what it’s gotten instead:


  • Youth marijuana use is 85 percent higher than the national average.
  • The industry targets kids by selling marijuana consumption devices to avoid detection like vape pens that look like high-lighters and eye-liner.
  • Marketers advertise super high potency gummi candies to youth whose developing brains make them more vulnerable to addiction. The vast amount of industry profits come from heavy and addicted users.

Marijuana-Related Traffic Fatalities

  • Marijuana-related traffic fatalities are up 151 percent.

Environmental Damage

  • An indoor marijuana grow consumes 17 times more power than an average residence.
  • Each marijuana plant consumes 2.2 liters of water—per day.

Contaminated Products

  • Colorado has issued more than 40 recalls of plants laced with pesticides and mold.

Burgeoning Black Market

  • Rather than being eliminated, the state’s black market has exploded. Colorado has become a source state for international drug trafficking and money laundering operations from Cuba, China, Mexico, and elsewhere.
  • Last year, the regulated industry produced 6.4 metric tons of unaccounted-for marijuana. More than 80,000 black-market plants were found on Colorado’s federal lands.

Read U.S. Attorney Troyer’s op-ed here.

Colorado legalized marijuana commercialization for medical use in 2009 followed by recreational use three years later. Like Colorado, the other seven states that fully legalized marijuana commercialized the drug for medical use first.

If you don’t want your state to become Colorado 2.0, make sure your state senator and state representative hear from you. Now, they are hearing exclusively from the marijuana industry, which is contributing to their campaigns.

If you live in Colorado or one of the seven other states with full legalization, ask your legislators to modify or repeal legalization.

If you live in a state that allows medical use of the drug, ask your legislators to prevent full legalization and to modify or repeal medical legalization.

If you live in a state that has done neither, work with your legislators to keep it that way.

You can find your state representative and state senator along with their contact information here. To the left, click on “Engage.” Click on “Who represents me?”

Colorado produced over 6 million marijuana plants, more than one plant for every man, woman, and child in the state.

Between January and June 2018, Colorado marijuana cultivators grew 6,011,678 marijuana plants, according to the Colorado Department of Revenue’s Marijuana Enforcement Division. The data come from the division’s just released mid-year update.

Reading from the bottom of the graph above, the counties of Denver (A-dark blue), Pueblo (B-dark red), El Paso (C-green), and Boulder (D-purple) produced 80 percent of the plants grown across the state. See key, below.

Access Marijuana Enforcement Division report here. This key and graph above are on pages 7 and 8.

Violent crime up 25 percent in Colorado since 2013, latest CBI report shows

Crime has surged in Colorado since the state legalized marijuana, says the Colorado Crime Bureau of Investigation:

  • violent crime up 25 percent (18,426 in 2013 to 23,009 in 2017)
  • aggravated assaults up 31 percent (9,714 to 12,711)
  • drug violations up 53 percent (13,878 to 21,166)
  • motor vehicle thefts up a whopping 73 percent (12,806 to 22,187)

Colorado legalized marijuana for medical use in 2000, legalized dispensaries in 2009, and legalized “recreational,” “retail,” or “adult use” (choose one, the state has used all three names) marijuana in 2012.

Read Denver Post story here. Access Colorado Crime Stats here.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Thomas Bjornstad on Unsplash.

The Hyatt of Hypocrisy: Banning Gosnell

When Kermit Gosnell was sentenced to three life terms for killing at least one mom and snipping the necks of who-knows-how-many babies, Planned Parenthood tweeted that “justice had been done.” But apparently, it’s justice they don’t want anyone talking about.

Five years ago, the case had all the makings of a riveting courtroom drama. The man on trial was charged with serially murdering children and at least one mom in a filthy, blood-splattered horror house near Philadelphia. A real-life monster, he preyed on his victims as a doctor, then stashed parts of their bodies in a basement freezer, jars, or cat-food containers. He tried grinding the pieces down garbage disposals or flushing them down toilets. It was a scene that Philadelphia’s District Attorney Seth Williams said “comprehension of the English language doesn’t and cannot adequately describe.”

Normally, the media would be tripping over themselves to report every grisly detail. But as the gruesome testimonies spilled out, the bright lights of the network cameras were nowhere to be found. And the keyboards of reporters, who race to recount the nightmarish details of every other tragedy, fell silent. It wasn’t because the story lacked jaw-dropping revelations. Sherry West, who had been with the office for years, told the court about a screaming baby that had been born in the clinic and then murdered. Steven Massof, who was also hired by Gosnell, sent shivers down people’s spines when he described the busy times: “It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.” In those moments, Massof confessed, “I felt like a fireman in hell. I couldn’t put out all the fires.”

“The killings became so routine,” an employee admitted, “that no one could put an exact number on them. They were considered ‘standard procedure.'” But what’s also become standard procedure in the half-decade since Gosnell’s conviction is for the media to pretend it never happened. The Left ignored the story then – and they want to ignore now.

Hopefully, that will be a lot harder, thanks to the producers of Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer. Despite four years of roadblocks — from censorship to outright intolerance — the film has survived its share of adversity. When Kickstarter refused to let the movie raise money on its site, they took their project to Indiegogo — and broke a crowdfunding record in the process. This past August, the hurdles only got higher. Executive Producer John Sullivan approached about buying airtime, only to be told that the ad was too conservative. Calling Gosnell an “abortionist,” they said, was a violation of their “value-neutral” policy. When Sullivan offered to change it to “abortion doctor,” executives refused a second time. Gosnell had to be a “doctor” — or no deal.

Now, the same organization that insisted Gosnell got what he deserved is doing everything they can to keep his story from being told. In Austin, the local Planned Parenthood is so afraid of people learning the truth about their industry that they bullied the local Hyatt Regency Hotel into canceling a screening of the film. Why? Because it coincided with Planned Parenthood’s $400-a-plate fundraising gala. According to Sullivan, the producers had more than 250 people registered only to be told the event was viewed as a “security” risk.

How ironic. If anyone’s a security risk, it’s the group killing 881 babies a day! Of course, no one should be surprised at Planned Parenthood’s pathetic attempt to shut the movie down. They’re probably afraid more Americans will make the connection between Gosnell’s barbarism and their support for procedures just like it. After all, if the group really wanted to spare women from these horrors, they’d fight for tougher clinic regulations. Instead, they’ve spent the last two decades trying to stop doctors from helping born-alive babies. Obviously, like Gosnell, they only believe “wanted” children have rights.

That would certainly explain why Planned Parenthood knew about Gosnell’s slaughterhouse and did nothing. For years, women and children suffered at the hands of this monster only to find out that Planned Parenthood could have stopped it — and didn’t. And this is the kind of organization we entrust with more than a half-billion taxpayer dollars? One that’s silent on abuse — and too concerned about profits to care about patients? “If Planned Parenthood thinks what Gosnell did was ‘appalling'” — at least publicly — “what do they call their own facilities’ dangerous, unsanitary conditions and practices of infanticide?” Students for Life asked.

In the end, the only way to stop this nightmare is to expose it. The producers of Gosnell did their part. Now it’s up to us. On October 12, go see the movie that the abortion industry doesn’t want you to see! In the meantime, check out what Gosnell‘s stars — including Dean Cain — had to say at VVS about the powerful story behind the film in the panel below. And take a minute to contact the Hyatt Regency in Austin (@Hyatt) and let them know that if they really believed in choice, they’d give audiences one!

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Conservatives Looking for Justice in Kavanaugh

Mobs on the Menu for Cruz

How to Spot Misleading Statistics in the Gun Control Debate

The question should not be, “Do guns prevent crime?” The question should be, “Are guns useful at resisting crime?”

The academic debate over gun control consists mainly of a war of statistics. New studies come out every few weeks, and as a result, both sides are constantly locking horns over the validity or invalidity of this-or-that study in this-or-that country.

For those who aren’t formally trained in data analysis, this debate can seem impossible to navigate. How should untrained laypersons go about interpreting the findings of statistical studies?

It’s About Resistance, Not Prevention

Statistics come in all shapes and sizes, so the first thing we need to do is determine which kinds of statistics are relevant to the gun control debate and which are irrelevant. To do this, we need a clear understanding of what the gun control debate is fundamentally about. We can’t separate the relevant from the irrelevant if we aren’t clear about how to frame the issue.

So, what is the debate over gun ownership fundamentally about? Many seem to think that it’s about deterrence; that is, whether gun ownership prevents crime. The most well-known proponent of this view is John Lott, who argues that shall-issue right-to-carry laws are effective at reducing crime rates by means of deterring criminals. Lott’s research has been corroborated by a number of other studies and criticized by others.

Regardless of whether Lott’s research stands up to scrutiny, I want to suggest that it’s mistaken to think about the gun ownership debate chiefly in terms of crime prevention. On the contrary, whether there exists a right to own guns depends chiefly on whether guns are reasonable means of resisting crime.

Although prevention is more socially desirable (it is better that a crime not happen in the first place), any deterrent benefits that guns may have would owe to their resistance benefits, so the latter is more fundamental. Guns are valued for self-defense primarily because of their ability to dispense lethal force, which means that resistance—not prevention—is primary. Prevention is an added benefit, but it is secondary.

None of this is to say that Lott’s research is wrong. Rather, the point I’m making is that prevention and resistance are two very different things, and the latter is what the gun debate is fundamentally about.

To illustrate the difference, let’s suppose that I encounter a mugger while taking a walk. I brandish my firearm to the mugger, who is undeterred and rushes me with a knife. I then shoot the mugger, stopping the crime. In that situation, my gun has failed to prevent a crime, but it was successful at resisting a crime. The gun was an effective and reasonable means of self-defense even though it failed to deter the would-be mugger.

This is a very crucial point that must be carefully appreciated. Even if guns don’t prevent crime by reducing the overall crime rate, it wouldn’t mean that guns are not a reasonable means of resisting crime. As far as gun rights are concerned, the single most important issue is simply the question of whether guns do a good job when deployed against a criminal assailant. Deterrence is not the key issue at stake.

The Wrong Kinds of Studies

With that point in mind, we are now in a position to evaluate the relevance of empirical studies. Suppose for the sake of argument that pro-control advocates are right that gun ownership or right-to-carry laws do not deter crime. What follows from this? Nothing much, actually. Since the gun debate is primarily about whether guns are reasonable means of resisting crimes, the fact that guns may not work to prevent crime doesn’t really damage the case for gun ownership.

This same is true even if guns increase crime. Let’s revisit the earlier scenario involving the mugger. Suppose that upon seeing my brandished gun, the mugger becomes enraged and charges me. In that case, not only has my gun failed to prevent a crime, it may actually have worsened one. But that wouldn’t mean that my gun wasn’t a reasonable means of resisting crime, nor that I wasn’t justified in using it to defend myself.

The point here is this: even if studies showing that gun ownership or right-to-carry laws increase crime are right, they’re irrelevant. It doesn’t follow that guns are not effective when used in self-defense. Since the merits of gun ownership center around their resistance benefits, it is misleading to attack that by focusing on their lack of preventative benefits. The failure of a gun to prevent crime doesn’t imply its failure at resisting crime.

Proponents of gun control are therefore guilty of a subtle sleight of hand when they cite studies showing that guns lead to more crime or that gun-owners have a higher risk of being killed by a gun. Even if all these studies are true (and there is considerable reason to doubt that they are), they are wholly irrelevant to what is actually at stake in the debate over gun ownership. It confuses the risk that guns have in general with their effectiveness when used for self-protection.

Now to be fair, many gun advocates are guilty of making this same mistake, in that they frame the entire debate in terms of deterrence and crime prevention. While it’s not wrong to look at these questions, they should be secondary to what really matters. Gun advocates should direct their primary attention to the number of defensive gun uses and the effectiveness of guns in self-defense, as they pertain directly to the core issue of the gun debate: resisting crime.

So, the next time you see a study showing how gun ownership may increase crime or one’s chances of dying, know that it is irrelevant to what is actually at stake. Being able to make the distinction between prevention and resistance won’t make you an expert at data analysis, but it will go a long way in helping you wade through the morass of anti-gun statistics.

The Right Kinds of Studies

The type of studies we should be paying attention to are those studies that deal directly with the effectiveness of guns when used in a self-defense scenario. On that topic, there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that guns are effective when used in self-defense.

A 1993 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology found that out of eight different forms of robbery resistance, “victim gun use was the resistance strategy most strongly and consistently associated with successful outcomes for robbery victims.”

A 2000 study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that men and women who resisted with a gun were less likely to be injured or lose property than those who resisted using some other means or who did not resist at all. In the case of women, “having a gun really does result in equalizing a woman with a man.”

A 2004 study published in the journal Criminology found that out of sixteen different forms of victim self-protection, “a variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury.”

Finally, a 2010 study published in Crime and Delinquency found that resistance with a gun decreased the odds of robbery and rape completion by 93 percent and 92 percent, respectively.

Taking stock of these points, the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council concluded in a 2013 review of the literature that

studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.

When it comes to the use of studies and statistics, both sides tend to focus on the impact of gun ownership and right-to-carry laws on causing or deterring violence. These are certainly interesting issues to examine, but deterrence (or lack thereof) isn’t actually relevant to the key question in the gun debate. What matters is simply the question of whether guns are effective at doing what they’re designed to do. And on that question, there is clear consensus that guns are extremely effective at self-defense.

Tim Hsiao

Tim Hsiao

Tim Hsiao is Instructor of Philosophy and Humanities at Grantham University. His website is timhsiao.org

Planned Parenthood: Pro-Sexual Assault Until It Hurts Their Narrative

On Friday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh denied an unproven accusation that he and a friend sexually assaulted a woman in high school. As the Senate decides how to react to the accuser’s claims, Planned Parenthood is jumping on the bandwagon to claim that Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination process should be halted.

The replies to these Tweets lay out the case that Planned Parenthood is simply being a left-wing attack dog. More importantly, however, is their absolute hypocrisy when it comes to treatment of women who are sexually assaulted.

2ndVote readers are familiar with Live Action’s excellent work uncovering Planned Parenthood’s widespread protection of sex abusers. Are you also aware of the time a Mobile, Alabama Planned Parenthood center gave two abortions to a 14-year old girl in four months, but concluded that she wasn’t being sexually assaulted? The center also did not report the girl’s condition to the state, in violation of health care reporting laws.

The girl had two children prior to those abortions, as well. LifeSiteNews has more:

That official said that a LifeSiteNews summary of the situation was “true,” but it “would be much better” if LifeSiteNews framed its coverage favorably. It was subsequently clarified with this official that “essentially, your department was satisfied [Planned Parenthood] had acted in good faith, and not intentionally hid this information” from child protective services.”

This official also told LifeSiteNews that Planned Parenthood had previously investigated the 14-year old’s circumstances, and determined she was not being abused. However, the spokesperson LifeSiteNews spoke with on Monday said that there are no state requirements for what questions Planned Parenthood asked of the 14-year old to determine her four pregnancies were not due to abuse.

Got that? The state health department believed Planned Parenthood “accidentally” broke state law, so it gave them a slap on the wrist. No wonder Planned Parenthood’s national spokespersons believe they can continue to flout sex abuse, baby sales, and other laws with impunity. And no wonder Planned Parenthood believes it can claim to #BelieveWomen about sexual assault despite its own poor record on that front.

The only thing Planned Parenthood will listen to is money. 2ndVote shoppers should tell corporate backers of America’s largest abortion company to stop funding sex abuse cover-ups and slaughter of the unborn.

The following companies and nonprofits have directly funded Planned Parenthood

American Express
Bank of America
Bath & Body Works
Ben & Jerry’s
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Charles Schwab
Deutsche Bank

Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Frito Lay
General Electric
Jiffy Lube
JPMorgan Chase
Johnson & Johnson
Kaiser Permanente
Kraft Heinz
Levi Strauss
Liberty Mutual
March of Dimes
Mondelez International

Morgan Stanley
Progressive Insurance
Susan G. Komen
United Airlines
United Way
US Bank
Wells Fargo
WD-40 Company

The following companies have supported 3rd party groups that fund Planned Parenthood

7 For All Mankind
Abbott Laboratories
Advanced Micro Device
American Airlines
American Express
American Greetings
American Petroleum Institute 
Ameriprise Financial
Ann Taylor
Banana Republic
Bank of America
Ben & Jerry’s
Best Buy
Black & Decker
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Calvin Klein
Campbell’s Soup
Caribou Coffee
Central Pacific Financial
Choice Hotels
Comerica Bank
Commerce Bank
Corning Inc.
Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Del Monte Foods

Delta Express
Deutsche Bank
Dollar General
Dollar Shave Club
Dow Chemical
Enterprise Holdings
Ernst & Young
Express Scripts Inc. 
Fannie Mae
Fifth Third Bank
Freddie Mac
Fry’s Food Stores
General Electric
General Mills
General Motors
Goldman Sachs
H&R Block
Hallmark Cards
Harris Teeter
HCA Holdings
Health Net
Hellmann’s Mayonnaise
Hershey Company
Hillshire Brands Company
Home Depot
Jack in the Box
Jiffy Lube
John Hancock Financial

Johnson & Johnson
JPMorgan Chase 
Junior Achievement
Kentucky Fried Chicken
L.L. Bean
Lands’ End
Levi Strauss
Liberty Mutual
Lincoln Financial Group
Mars Inc.
Mary Kay
Merck & Co. 
MGM Resorts International
Mondelez International
Morgan Stanley
National Car Rental
National Basketball Association
National Football League
NBC Universal
New Balance
New York Life
Newell Brands
Old Navy
Pacific Life
Pizza Hut
PNC Bank
Prudential Financial and Insurance
Procter & Gamble
Progressive Insurance

Qdoba Mexican Grill
Quaker Oats
Quality Inn
Ralph Lauren
Rite Aid
Sam’s Club
Seattle’s Best Coffee
Shell Oil
Shelter Insurance
The Sherwin Williams Company
State Farm
Susan G. Komen
T.J. Maxx
Taco Bell
Tazo Tea 
Texas Instruments
The North Face
The Travelers Companies
Tiffany & Co
Time Warner
Toys R Us
Tractor Supply Company
Turbo Tax
UnitedHealth Group
US Bank
Vanity Fair
Victoria’s Secret
Wells Fargo
Western Union
Whirlpool Corporation
White Castle

Help us continue creating content like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Shutterstock.

Breaking News from Harvard: Faith is Good for You

The Bible tells us that there is nothing new under the sun (Ecc. 1:9). So often what passes for “news” is really nothing more than a refresher. A case in point is a new study from published this month in the American Journal of Epidemiology about the link between religious upbringing and subsequent health and well-being.

One not-so-surprising finding of the study, which was done by Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, is that, “Compared with no attendance, at least weekly attendance of religious services was associated with greater life satisfaction and positive affect, a number of character strengths, lower probabilities of marijuana use and early sexual initiation, and fewer lifetime sexual partners.” Additionally, among the studies’ participants:

“Compared with never praying or meditating, at least daily practice was associated with greater positive affect, emotional processing, and emotional expression; greater volunteering, greater sense of mission, and more forgiveness; lower likelihoods of drug use, early sexual initiation, STIs, and abnormal Pap test results; and fewer lifetime sexual partners.”

These findings aren’t a surprise to us here at FRC. For years, we’ve seen this in practice, and in data like those published by our friend Pat Fagan at the Marriage and Religion Research Institute. It is a demonstrable fact that when faith is allowed to flourish, good outcomes are in store for society at large.

The study’s author observes,

“These findings are important for both our understanding of health and our understanding of parenting practices. Many children are raised religiously, and our study shows that this can powerfully affect their health behaviors, mental health, and overall happiness and well-being.”

Of course, we know that “faith” in a generic sense doesn’t always guarantee a comfortable outcome, but an abiding faith in Jesus Christ can anchor a person’s soul for whatever he or she may face in life. A study like this won’t necessarily cause people to embrace faith, but it does show that a society in which religious liberty thrives will be a healthier society. And any government that wants to promote the well-being of its people should give ample space for people to have the freedom to believe and to live out those beliefs.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Deplorables, Irredeemables, and the Dregs of Society

Kavanaugh Allegations: Aimed at Justice or at a Justice?

FRC in the Media

Coca-Cola & IBM Join Dozens of Companies to Demand Northern Ireland Legalize Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

In the 3.5 years since the U.S. Supreme Court legally redefined marriage, religious liberty has plummeted across America. We are simultaneously seeing a major “transgender” push for men to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms, no matter what the harm is to women and girls.

None of this matters to dozens of international corporations which are urging Northern Ireland to join the rest of the Western World in ignoring the reality of marriage — which is between one man and one woman.

Via Amnesty International (h/t to LifeSiteNews):

“We, the undersigned write to express our support for the extension of civil marriage in Northern Ireland. As employers we encourage and welcome diversity and inclusion in our workforce and recognise the rights of our lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender employees to be themselves and to live and work, free from discrimination, prejudice or exclusion.

We could hammer dozens of companies for signing Amnesty International’s misguided document, but we’ll focus on two: Coca-Cola and IBM. Both are companies which have jumped on the left-wing bandwagon on all of the issues which 2ndVote ranks. They are especially bad on marriage and religious liberty.

Coca-Cola has donated to the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD. It is a corporate partner of GLAAD, received the top score in Human Rights Campaign’s “Corporate Equality Index,” and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to redefine marriage. It has since jumped further down the left-wing bandwagon by backing legislation and coalitions which would completely undermine religious liberty for tens of millions of Americans.

IBM has similarly left American values behind in its capitulation to liberal ideologies. It backs the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, is a GLAAD corporate partner, opposes religious liberty as part of business coalitions, and like Coca-Cola has structured its company so as to receive a maximum score of 100 Human Rights Campaign’s Index.

One would expect corporate leaders to recognize that same-sex “marriage” leads to a host of social ills. It denies children their right to opposite-sex parents. It encourages harmful sexual relations. It forces governments to crack down on those who rightly support only real marriage, and leads to problems such as female survivors of rape being told they must accept men in private changing and restroom facilities.

Instead, they are doubling down on bad policies by putting pressure on Northern Ireland to ditch common-sense laws. We urge 2ndVote shoppers to let Coca-Cola and IBM know that we won’t stand for them using our money for their left-wing agenda.

Send Coca-Cola an Email!      Contact IBM!

Help us continue creating content like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Shutterstock.

The Cannabis Conundrum: Steering Policy and Medicine with Insufficient Data

The current issue of the International Review of Psychiatry issues a call for marijuana regulatory science.

An editorial introducing the issue notes that marijuana’s use as a medicine began with compassion for people with terminal or debilitating conditions for which no standard treatment existed but has expanded into multiple conditions which are neither life-threatening nor debilitating for which effective treatments exist. This expansion has given rise to a “large-scale, for-profit industry fraught with public health concerns.”

“Quality control issues abound in this industry as there are no established standards for cultivating, processing, testing, or labeling cannabis products. There is also concern over advertisements and product labeling that include misleading or unsubstantiated health claims, as these products have not been vetted by traditional drug development methods. The speed in which cannabis policies are changing is rapid, and the fact that these are happening as a direct result of legislation or by voter referendum is reckless given the absence of consensus standards and, in many cases, appropriate regulatory oversight,” writes researcher Ryan Vandrey of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

He notes that the US food and Drug Administration (FDA) was recently granted regulatory oversight of nicotine and tobacco products. This has generated an abundance of policy research resulting in regulations that will likely have a positive impact on public health. He writes there is a critical parallel need for marijuana regulatory research.

“Novel products and cannabis delivery devices are rolling onto the shelves of dispensaries at a rapid rate, product development appears to be geared towards high potency/high dose products, and it is all being carefully marketed to increase consumption,” he says.

In addition, Dr. Vandrey says more research is needed to evaluate the risks and benefits for both medicinal and non-medicinal (recreational) marijuana use.

“Currently there is inadequate data for a confident determination of risk/benefit of cannabis use as a potential therapeutic in psychiatry, yet it is being recommended to individuals for use in the treatment of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, opioid use disorder, dementia, and psychotic disorders,” he writes.

Although there is a lack of data, he says, there are numerous cases where people have been helped by marijuana and some of its cannabinoids. This should be used to motivate the development of “reliably formulated cannabinoid medications,” he concludes.

Read International Review of Psychiatry article here.

Lack of communication about marijuana for medical use between doctors and their patients

Researchers surveyed 242 patients and their primary care physicians in three family medicine practices in Denver, Colorado. Patients’ and doctors’ surveys were linked by numbers rather than names. The surveys were distributed in the doctors’ offices for patients to fill out anonymously. Only primary care physicians whose patients completed a survey filled out the doctor’s survey.

  • 22 percent of patients reported marijuana use in the past six months.
  • Of those, 61 percent said they used marijuana for medical purposes.
  • None obtained their state medical marijuana card from their primary care physicians.
  • Primary care physicians were aware their patients used marijuana only 53 percent of the time.
  • Primary care physicians identified conditions they believed could be adversely affected by marijuana use in 31 percent of their patients.

Read the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine article here.

Jimmy Buffett brand to develop cannabis products with Surterra

Margaritaville’s Jimmy Buffett, whose fans are known as Parrotheads, has licensed his band’s name—Coral Reefer—to Surterra Holdings, which will produce a line of marijuana products for medical use under the band’s brand name.

Surterra is a $100 million, five-year-old company based in Atlanta that has done no business in Georgia except to contribute to Georgia politicians. Surterra’s former president holds a seat on a legislative study commission to decide whether to legalize marijuana cultivation in Georgia. The commission’s report is due to the full legislature in time for the 2019 legislative session.

The Wall Street Journal reports the venture will produce Coral Reefer products in the form of vape pens, gel caps, edibles, and lotions. Beau Wrigley, the chewing gum scion who sold the family business a few years ago to establish a family investment firm, raised $65 million for Surterra and became its chairman last month. He said at the time that while Surterra is focused on products for medical use, it plans to compete in the recreational market as well.

Read the SunSentinel story here.

When two studies contradict each other, how do scientists decide which one is true?

People who want marijuana to be legalized for medical and/or recreational use often point to studies that re-enforce their viewpoint. People who don’t want pot legalized often do the same, pointing to studies that are diametrically opposed. How can there be so many studies that contradict each other?

We asked Michael Kuhar, PhD, Candler Professor of Neuropharmacology at Emory University and author of The Addicted Brain, how scientists determine which studies are valid and which are not. Here are his answers:

There are a number of ways scientists evaluate conflicting results.

1. The scientist will evaluate the two conflicting studies on her own, looking closely at both.

  • She might look at the patient population. Are they different? If yes, it might be that both studies are correct for the patient population involved.
  • He might ask which study has more patients because a larger group of patients tends to produce more reliable results.
  • She might compare the methodology, experimental design, and statistical analysis. Does one study look more rigorous than the other?
  • A scientist might look at the authors of the two studies and ask which one has more experience in the field.
  • While the above approach might reveal the best study, even a close review of the papers might not reveal which is more reliable.

2. If the scientist is unsure or is unable to critically evaluate both studies on his own, he might go to another scientist who is expert in that area and who knows more about it. Opinions of other highly trained people are important.

3. She is likely to look for other published studies in the area because confirmation and support for either study is important. The scientist wants to see if someone else has gotten similar results to those of one of the contrary studies. It is possible that, in the face of conflicting studies, everyone may have to wait until additional studies are carried out to see which result is the correct one. Confirmation is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Scientists are trained to deal with such conflicts. Scientists do not expect a perfect world, and they often look for the preponderance or greatest evidence for a result. Every study may not produce exactly the same result, but the overall bulk of the data (from several studies) will support one view or another. Overall, this is referred to as evidence-based thinking.

FDA cracks down on Juul and e-cigarette retailers

As noted in the first article of today’s The Marijuana Report, the FDA now has jurisdiction over nicotine and tobacco regulation. FDA declared that some 2 million teenagers are using e-cigarettes and vaping products like the popular Juul, pictured above, and are becoming “hooked” on nicotine. The issue has reached epidemic proportions.

Today, FDA announced that it is giving Juul, RJR Vapor Company’s Vuse, Altria Group’s MarkTen, Imperial Grand’s blu and Logic 60 days to prove they can keep their products away from minors. If they fail, FDA may remove the flavored products from the market.

FDA also sent warning letters to 1,100 retailers, including 7-Eleven stores, Walgreens, Circle K convenience shops, and Shell gas stations. It has issued another 131 fines for selling e-cigarettes to minors.

Read the New York Times story here.

Breaking: Marijuana legalization in Colorado not so great after all

The 2018 Rocky Mountain HIDTA report released this morning shows marijuana legalization is having a negative impact in many areas:

  • Marijuana-related traffic deaths have increased 151 percent compared to all Colorado traffic deaths, which have increased 35 percent.
  • Past-month marijuana use among Coloradans age 12 and older is 85 percent higher than the national average.
  • Marijuana-related ER visits have increased 52 percent since Colorado legalized pot.
  • Hospitalizations related to marijuana jumped 148 percent.
  • Violent crime increased 18.6 percent; property crime increased 8.3 percent.
  • 65 percent of local jurisdictions throughout the state have banned both medical and recreational marijuana.

Read full report here.

Ending Black Lives: As NFL Season Starts, Teams Support Abortion-Backing United Way Chapters

The 2018 NFL season officially kicks off today. As players and their corporate allies continue to push racial divisiveness over football, 2ndVote has discovered that 12 NFL teams partner with United Way affiliates that financially support Planned Parenthood–America’s largest abortion company and a group which has targeted black babies for disproportionate death for years.

Earlier this week, 2ndVote cross-referenced United Way’s list of chapters which partner with local teams with those chapters which financially support Planned Parenthood. As seen below, some NFL teams’ United Way partners sent over a hundred thousand dollars to Planned Parenthood.

NFL Team United Way Partner Funds Planned Parenthood?
Arizona Cardinals Valley of the Sun United Way No
Atlanta Falcons United Way of Greater Atlanta No. Last donated 2015.
Baltimore Ravens United Way of Central Maryland Planned Parenthood Federation of America ($6,629) Planned Parenthood Keystone ($8,670) Planned Parenthood of Maryland($125,631)
Buffalo Bills United Way of Buffalo & Erie No
Carolina Panthers United Way of Central Carolinas No
Chicago Bears United Way of Metropolitan Chicago & United Way of Lake County Planned Parenthood of Illinois($5,876)
Cincinnati Bengals United Way of Greater Cincinnati No. Last donated 2015
Cleveland Browns United Way of Greater Cleveland No. Last donated 2015
Dallas Cowboys United Way of Metropolitan Dallas & United Way of Tarrant County Planned Parenthood of North Texas ($7,356)
Denver Broncos Mile High United Way Planned Parenthood of Rocky Mountains Denver($8,455)
Detroit Lions United Way for Southeastern Michigan No
Green Bay Packers Brown County United Way No
Houston Texans United Way of Greater Houston No
Indianapolis Colts United Way of Central Indiana Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky ($33,848)
Jacksonville Jaguars United Way of Northeast Florida No
Kansas City Chiefs United Way of Greater Kansas City Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-MO ($41,946)
Los Angeles Rams United Way of Greater Los Angeles No.
Miami Dolphins United Way of Miami-Dade & United Way of Broward County Miami-Dade last donated in 2014. Broward County does not contribute
Minnesota Vikings Greater Twin Cities United Way No
New Engand Patriots United Way of Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley No
New Orleans Saints United Way of Southest Louisiana No
New York Giants United Way of New York City No
New York Jets United Way of Northern New Jersey No
Oakland Raiders United Way of the Bay Area Planned Parenthood Foundation-Nati HQ ($7,733) & Planned Parenthood Northern California ($23,845)
Philadelphia Eagles United Way of Greater Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey No
Pittsburgh Steelers United Way of Allegheny County Planned Parenthood of Western PA ($84,824)
San Diego Chargers United Way of San Diego County No.
San Fransisco 49ers United Way of the Bay Area Planned Parenthood Foundation-Nati HQ ($7,733) & Planned Parenthood Northern California ($23,845)
Seattle Seahawks United Way of King County Last Donated 2015. 2016 Tax Records not available
Tampa Bay Buccaneers United Way Suncoast Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida ($31,468)
Tennessee Titans United Way of Metropolitan Nashville Planned Parenthood of East and Middle Tennessee ($84,968)
Washington Redskins United Way of the National Capital Area Planned Parenthood Federation of America($5,348) & Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington ($273,215)

This shameful double-speak is outrageous. The NFL has allowed its players to slander America’s police and disrespect the national anthem while promoting a false narrative on race. Yet the league partner is a major partner with United Way and its $2.7 million in donations to Planned Parenthood in 2016 alone.

To make matters worse, Planned Parenthood doesn’t just end lives through abortion, it also has allegedly sold the parts of babies it killed for profit and it has frequently covered up the sexual abuse of minor.

We urge 2ndVote shoppers to double down on forcing the NFL to ditch the double-speak theatrics about black lives, to stop funding killers of black babies, and get back to playing football.

RELATED ARTICLEFormer NFL Player Colin Kaepernick Donates Thousands to Radical Pro-Abortion Group

Help us continue creating content like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Shutterstock.

Does Colin Kaepernick Know His Buddies At Nike Donate To Ending Black Lives?

Nike has made Colin Kaepernick the face of its new “Just Do it!” campaign. The campaign shows Nike’s ardent support for Kaepernick’s beliefs that America is a racist nation in which government hit men (read: police) target black men for death.

Does Kaepernick know that Nike sends millions of dollars to groups which target black lives for gruesome deaths domestically and abroad? Does he know that not only is Nike a financial supporter of Planned Parenthood, it donates to the Population Council — a group which promotes abortion in the developing world — often black-majority nations?

Probably not. But if he reads 2ndVote, he will soon.

Follow The Money

Looking inside the U.S., Nike matches employee donations to an Oregon chapter of Planned Parenthood. As 2ndVote shoppers know, Planned Parenthood targets black neighborhoods for abortion.

But that’s not all. As we noted in our statement yesterday:

Since 2013, Nike has donated over $1.8 million to Population Council, an organization that promotes abortion in the developing world. Like Planned Parenthood, which Nike also supports, Population Council was founded by eugenicists. Also like Planned Parenthood, Population Council specifically targets black populations, as well as other non-white populations, for the expansion of abortion.

According to its website, the Population Council supports “a global network of offices in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.” Nike, which regularly takes heat for alleged sweat shops in non-white nations such as Vietnam, is thus financially supporting not only harming non-white lives, but also ending black and other non-white lives in the name of “population control.”

It is certainly possible that Kaepernick doesn’t know that Nike’s principles align not with protecting black lives but rather padding their pockets with money he makes for them (and, as a byproduct, for their sweat shop business partners and abortion donation recipients). But even that strategy wasn’t working on Tuesday — Nike shares fell three percent after news of the Kaepernick promotion was released.


Help us continue creating content like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image taken on Sep 1, 2016 is of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick (7) walking up the tunnel after a 31-21 win over the San Diego Chargers at Qualcomm Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Jake Roth-USA TODAY Sports.

How Orwellian has the Democrat Party become? Let’s count the ways…

In September 2017 Proud Boy Magazine (PBM) published an article by PawL BaZiLe titled “10 Ways Orwell’s 1984 is a Progressive Utopia.” BaZiLe provided ten “quotes and commentary on the left’s relationship with Orwell’s world from 1984.”

As Steven Crowder points out in his political formulas:

Any Word + Socialism = Socialism and Socialism + Anything = A bad idea that’s never worked.

PBM noted in 2017:

If you haven’t read George Orwell’s master piece 1984run, do not walk, to itunes, or a book store or Amazon and get busy.  The book was written in 1948 so the British author was able to personally live through the age of ideas that brought us such monsters as Hitler and Stalin.  The book itself is so perfect, it has become a clique for a dystopian future controlled by an all seeing authoritarian regime in a world with no freedom.  Upon my recent reading of it, I couldn’t help but notice how eerily similar the world in the book was to the post modernist left’s wish list for the world.

Fox News reported on the Democratic Socialists of America:

The Democratic Socialists of America [DSA] got its start as a culmination of two groups – the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC) and the New American Movement (NAM) – according to Temple University professor Joseph M. Schwartz, who detailed the organization’s history online.

As DSA’s membership grew from its official founding in 1982, it had a hand in “building a strong coalition among progressive trade unionists, civil rights and feminist activists and the ‘new politics’ left-liberals” at the time, led by late chairman Michael Harrington.

Let’s give some recent examples of just how Orwellian the Democrat Party has become using a few the ten quotes from 1984.

Quote 1 – “Who controls the past controls the future who controls the present controls the past.”

Groups tearing down Confederate statues in the name of stopping racism and hate. Hollywood in its film “First Man” leaving out the scene where the American flag is planted on the moon. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stating that “America was never great.” Not teaching the U.S. Constitution in public schools. Teaching social justice in U.S. colleges and universities rather than equal treatment under the law.

Quote 2 – “The centuries of capitalism were held to have produced nothing of value.”

Today’s core of the left is a hatred is capitalism. Democratic Socials candidates in the 2018 midterm elections such as Andrew Gillum in Florida and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York portend a rise of anti-capitalists nationwide.

PBM notes, “The Occupy movement was hugely anti-capitalist and led by people who look like they couldn’t manage their deodorant budget let alone everyone else’s money.  If you live in a big city today, or just have a art school student you needed to sit with at Thanksgiving you’re sure to get the evil eye and a lecture if you openly declare you’re a capitalist.  If they could push a button a destroy the free market today, the left would.  The choices these economic “hobbyists” seem to have to replace the open market is nothing or full blown socialism.  This was the message that got a candidate like Bernie Sander so much steam in the 2016 primary.”

Both Gillum and Ocasio-Cortez were endorsed by self-proclaimed Democrat Socialist Bernie Sanders.

Quote 3 – “It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism.”

Ayn Rand in her monograph “Textbook of Americanism” wrote:

What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?

The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism. Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.

These two systems are now represented by collectivist, one world order Democrat Socialists and individualist Republicans.

Quote 4 – “A word contains its opposite in itself.”

Examples of “words that are opposite” used by politicians, the media and those in the Democrat Socialist Party include:

  1. If you are pro-American or voted for President Donald J. Trump you are a Nazi.
  2. If you are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism you are Islamophobic or a racist.
  3. If you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman you are homophobic.
  4. If you believe in God then you are part of the alt-right.
  5. If you believe in the U.S. Constitution as written then you are not democratic.

Please take the time to read and watch the embedded videos in the Proud Boy Magazine (PBM) “10 Ways Orwell’s 1984 is a Progressive Utopia.”

George Orwell wrote that in the Utopian society of 1984:

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.
Big Brother is watching you.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.
Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.
It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.

Any of these sound familiar?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is a 1984 Movie Still, CosmicCatacombs.com.

VIDEO: Democrat Socialist Andrew Gillum can’t explain how Floridians will pay for his ‘Medicare for All’ plan

The Democrat Socialist running for governor of the state of Florida appeared on CNN. Gillum’s platform contains lots of free stuff but isn’t clear on how it would be paid for. Gillum’s campaign website states:

Andrew believes that healthcare should be a fundamental right, not a privilege. Instead, extreme politicians refuse to acknowledge that Floridians struggle every day to keep themselves and their families from going bankrupt due to the lack or cost of healthcare. Andrew believes that Senator Sanders’ Medicare for All plan will help lower costs and expand coverage to more Floridians. [Emphasis added]

Watch the CNN interview.

MyPanhandle.com did an analysis of Gillum’s policies. Here is what they found:

According to his website, Gillum believes that climate change is real and is an urgent threat. He believes the best way to address the impacts of climate change is to “to embrace a plan to transition Florida to clean energy as rapidly as possible.”

Gillum says he supports the legalization of marijuana, “in order to generate new revenue to pay for teacher and instructional staff pay increases and to reduce the mass incarceration of people with low-level drug offenses.”

Gillum says he will push for equal pay legislation and will protect and encourage women-owned businesses.

Gillum’s website states that he “trusts women to make their own healthcare decisions with their doctor — not politicians.” He says he is the only candidate to propose a law protecting women’s access to no-cost contraceptive care under Obamacare.

The DeSantis campaign in an email states:

When it comes to raising taxes, Andrew Gillum just can’t help himself.

First he proposed increasing the corporate income tax by over a billion dollars. Now he has gone even further with his disastrous “plan” for single-payer healthcare that, if implemented nationwide, would cost taxpayers nearly 33 TRILLION dollars.

[ … ]

He also proposed Florida joining a “confederation of states” with California, New York, and other left-wing states in order to negotiate the socialist healthcare plan. We’re still not sure what that means or if it’s possible.

RELATED VIDEO: Why “Democratic” Socialism Doesn’t Work.