The 2020 Presidential Election is all about preserving Obama’s legacy — the rise of the ‘Obamanauts’

For those few of us who are watching the various and sundry debates and forums in which the media puts on, and in which the Democrat Party candidates gladly participate, there are some revelations. Revelations like President Trump being labeled a “white supremacist” during the third Democrat presidential debate. Name calling is the soup du jour for Democrats.

To date these debates and forums have included but are not limited to:

There have been many statements and promises made by the various Democrats running for president at each of the above events. What is most revealing is that each candidate puts forth policies that are reminiscent of those implemented under former President Barrack Obama. Some might even say that some of the policies put forth by Dem candidates are Obama on steroids such as: Medicare for all (Obamacare on steroids), New Green Deal (Paris Accord on steroids) and LGBTQ agenda (pseudo equality on steroids).

What defines these candidates? Who is their political mentor? What do they want for the American people? Are they progressives or regressives?

What’s the Democrat Common Denominator?

The common denominator among all of the Democrats running for president (including Hillary Clinton should she jump in) is to reclaim Obama’s legacy.

Dissent Magazine published an article titled The Obamanauts: What is the defining achievement of Barack Obama? written by Corey Robin. Robin writes:

[N]ot only do the Obamanauts wish to salvage Obama’s legacy from Donald Trump; they also believe Obama’s legacy can save us from Donald Trump.

Democrats are committed to going back to the future by undoing everything that President Trump has done to undo everything Obama did during his 8-years as president.

Robin notes:

What is the defining achievement of Barack Obama? For a time, it seemed it would be his foreign policy: the Paris Agreement, diplomatic relations with Cuba, and getting Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. When Trump got elected and those deals got undone, it seemed it would be the Affordable Care Act. But after plummeting for several years, the uninsured rate among adults has begun to creep back up. Obama did avert a second Great Depression, but history is not kind to averters: with time, what didn’t happen tends to get eclipsed by what did. And what did happen under Obama is a recovery that was slow and weak. Black homeownership rates, which took a major hit during the financial crisis, are the lowest they’ve ever been.

What is interesting is that the media and some Democrats are trying to cause a recession in order to defeat President Trump. Various Democrats running for president have called pullout from the Paris Climate Accord and Iran Nuclear deal mistakes. Some Democrats, and even Republicans, have called President Trump’s pull back of some forces in Syria reckless. Democrats are running a “free-stuff primary” including: canceling all student debt held by the government, giving everyone a federal job under the New Green Deal, and promising voters free housing and a free education.

Are the Democrats running for president Obamanauts?

The Public Policy Red-lines are Crystal Clear

In January 16, 2016 NJ.com published a article titled 10 huge differences between Democratic and Republican platforms by who wrote:

It’s hard to say you don’t have a clear choice this [2016] presidential election year. The Democratic and Republican platforms show views of world 180 degrees apart.

Salant’s words echo today even more so than in January of 2016. Here are the 10 huge differences that Salant listed:

  1. Abortion
  2. Same Sex Marriage
  3. Immigration
  4. Climate Change
  5. Medicare
  6. Wall Street
  7. Iran
  8. Israel
  9. Money in Politics
  10. Voting Rights

These are the same issues in 2020. With the addition of: eliminate the Electoral College, Supreme Court appointments and impeachment.

The only differences are that Democrats have become more extremist in each of these policy categories.

  1. Abortion has now become infanticide and the harvesting of body parts from live fetuses for profit.
  2. Same sex marriage has become a full frontal assault on religious liberty under the First Amendment.
  3. National security, national sovereignty and immigration are front and center with building the wall and the Trump administration’s efforts to enforce immigration laws over the objections of Democrats and Democrat appointed judges.
  4. Climate Change has morphed into the Green New Deal, which expands government control as never seen before.
  5. Medicare for all is the war cry of Democrats, including, as they all raised their hands, providing Medicare for illegal aliens (a term that can get you find $250,000 if used in a derogatory way in New York City).
  6. Wall Street is panicked that if Elizabeth Warren becomes the nominee free markets will disappear.
  7. Iran is threatening the world with violence and conducting terrorist acts globally at an ever increasing rate.
  8. Israel has been boycotted, divested and sanctioned by the Democrats who have become the party of anti-Semitism.
  9. There is more dark money in politics now than every before.
  10. And finally Democrats want voting rights given to illegal aliens, felons and every other non-citizen, without question.

The 2020 election is a repeat of the same issues, but these issues have been radicalized by the Democrat Party.

The 2020 election is about choosing between a Marxist form of totalitarianism or a keeping our Constitutional Republican form of government.

Choose wisely.

RELATED VIDEO: Steve Hilton — What the impeachment inquiry of Trump is really about.

© All rights reserved.

AMAZON SYNOD VIDEO REPORT: Amazonian Infanticide — Do synod fathers really believe it doesn’t happen?

TRANSCRIPT

Infanticide — probably not the topic Pope Francis and Amazon synod organizers wanted stealing headlines, but it is.

In the Vatican press hall today, reporters were reading stories from international publications talking about the issue.

One reporter in particular, Giuseppe Rusconi, was delighted to see the expanding coverage. It was his question about infanticide that all over the world that Peruvian Cdl. Pedro Barreto went nuclear over, denying it happens and demanding proof.

Well, “proof,” such as it is, comes in numerous forms.

For one, an ongoing debate in the Brazilian Parliament, where a law to ban the practice among the indigenous Amazonian tribes is being debated.

While that might sound strange to Western ears that a debate is even being had about burying alive children born with deformities, it is, in fact, the case.

The liberal position is that native peoples cannot be told what to do by the state, even when it comes to killing their own children, because those are imperialistic and colonialistic.

The position is supported by leading South American academics, who publish papers on the issue, this one by one of the leading proponents — Dr. Rita Segato — who argues that very point.

Segato’s paper is published on the website of a pro-indigenous organization called Cimi.

Cimi is closely aligned with the Brazilian Catholic bishops’ conference, and until the day after Rusconi’s question, the bishops’ conference had a link to Cimi and Dr. Segato’s paper defending the practice.

We say the day after the question, because the day after his question, the link was taken down, but not before the Rusconi found the link and printed out hard copies of all of it.

If a link on the Brazilian bishops’ website proving that the practice exists and a debate in the Brazilian Parliament over whether it should be allowed to continue owing to political correctness isn’t enough for Cdl. Barreto, then perhaps this will help.

It’s a documentary reenactment showing how some tribes of the Amazon go about the practice of burying children alive when they are born with deformities — or other reasons the village or tribes think they should not be allowed to live. What other reasons could that be?

That issue came up at yesterday’s press conference and was addressed quite ably by Bp. Wilmar Santin of Itaituba, Brazil, who quite openly admitted that sometimes, at least historically, when twins are born to some tribes, it is the belief that one is evil and the other good.

So, one of them is killed. On occasion, because parents and villagers can’t decide which one is evil and which one is good, both newborns are killed.

He added that he doesn’t know if this is still the practice and has seen evidence that it may be changing, but he can’t say for sure, which brings us back to Cdl. Barreto and his getting lit up over the issue, even pulling off his translator headphones to deny it when Rusconi asked the question.

Keep in mind the documents Rusconi found on the Brazilian bishops’ website acknowledging infanticide among some indigenous tribes.

Barreto isn’t just some run-of-the-mill cardinal here at the synod. He is a Pope Francis-created cardinal. He is also vice president of the Peruvian bishops’ conference.

But most importantly, he is vice president of the Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial Network and is one of the three president-delegates of the current synod.

That’s some pretty big firepower. In short, it doesn’t get very much bigger than Barreto, and yet he denies the practice exists in spite of there being the proof.

Brazilian Cdl. Cláudio Hummes is the senior prelate of the synod and a long-time associate of Pope Francis.

It is difficult to believe that the president of the conference is totally unaware of a debate in his home country’s parliament over a bill that would allow infanticide to continue and that his own bishops’ conference has — or rather, had — documents acknowledging it all.

Who took those documents down from the site within hours of the topic being brought up in the press hall? Who ordered them to be taken down? Why?

Lots of questions here on a day where another proposal put forward in the synod suggests that a list of so-called ecological sins should be developed and added to lists of more traditional sins.

Perhaps synod fathers might find room on that eco-sin list for burying deformed children alive — that is, if it wouldn’t offend sensibilities about impinging on the ancestral wisdom of the people of the forest, who the Church has much to learn from through listening and accompanying them.

Reporting to you from the Pan-Amazon Synod here at the Vatican.

INFANTICIDE: Live Organ Harvesting Commonplace in U.S. Abortion Mills [Video]

Daleiden, Merritt trial reveals beating hearts cut from abortion survivors

by Stephen Wynne  •  ChurchMilitant.com

SAN FRANCISCO (ChurchMilitant.com) – Bombshell testimony from the trial of Center for Medical Progress undercover journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt has revealed that infanticide is commonplace inside U.S. abortion mills.

Earlier this month, attorneys for Daleiden submitted a closing argument brief detailing that live births are occurring inside the facilities and that these newborns are routinely killed — their organs harvested while still alive.

Describing Daleiden’s research into the practice, the brief recounts that he discovered “a mainstream media exposé produced and aired in 2000 by Chris Wallace for the program ’20/20.'”

From Wallace’s report, Daleiden learned of Dean Alberty, who worked as a fetal tissue procurement technician inside a Planned Parenthood facility in suburban Kansas City.

According to the brief:

From the “20/20” video he learned that Alberty had been handed whole fetuses from Planned Parenthood doctors and had harvested beating hearts. Alberty had also testified before Congress and described a live birth of twins who were actually cuddling each other. He would not harvest from them and the abortion doctor drowned them in a pan of water.

The practice was not isolated to Kansas City, Daleiden discovered.

In the course of his research, he came across the book Beyond Abortion: A Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation, which documents experiments performed on unborn babies, as well as the removal of organs from infant abortion survivors.

In Beyond Abortion, Daleiden found an article titled “Artificial Placenta,” which described “obtaining live fetuses as old as 24 weeks from unnamed abortionists and keeping them alive in a machine for study but letting them drown in the machine after obtaining data.”

In the summer of 2011, he learned of a company named StemExpress, which specializes in providing “biospecimens” to researchers across the country; a deeper look at the firm revealed the scale of tissue harvesting occurring inside American abortion mills.

Daleiden discovered that StemExpress required “tissue procurers to service 48 universities and 8 private entities with fetal organs and tissues.”

He later uncovered “a StemExpress order form with a list of organs and tissues for sale, including whole hearts, hearts with veins and arteries attached, as well as brains, livers and other organs.”

He then found “a Stanford study using whole human fetal hearts obtained from StemExpress which they put on a Langendorff perfusion machine.”

According to the brief:

Mr. Daleiden learned through his own research and by consulting experts, including Dr. Theresa Deisher, that in order to use the Langendorff machine the heart had to either still be beating when it was placed on the machine or a beating heart had to be arrested in a relaxed state in a potassium solution and then quickly transported to the machine. … Dr. Deisher testified that she told Mr. Daleiden that the “most horrifying aspect of the use of the remains of aborted fetuses was that some of the babies had to be alive, have beating hearts when they were harvested.”

Deisher, a stem cell research scientist, testified that based on her experience with stem cell research on hearts, this was a frequent occurrence. The babies’ hearts have to be harvested while still beating, she explained, as otherwise the organ would have no research value because once in “contracture,” the heart’s cells would no longer be capable of regenerative growth.

The brief detailed additional evidence of infanticide — including testimony by a former StemExpress employee:

Mr. Daleiden continued to gather evidence for his investigation. He met Holly O’Donnell who had worked for StemExpress and told him she left after seeing a late gestated fetus. She was directed to dissect its brain. She did so. She also told him that her superior Jessica tapped the fetuses’ heart and it started beating. She also told him of seeing a message stating that an intact fetus was being sent to the StemExpress facility.

Daleiden later learned that “StemExpress technicians had to work very closely with the abortion doctors at [Planned Parenthood] MarMonte who increased dilation on the patients in order to obtain intact fetuses with beating hearts.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra — a self-identified Catholic — is prosecuting Daleiden and Merritt for their undercover work. In his preliminary hearing closing argument, he made no effort to rebut testimony about the harvesting of infant abortion survivors’ organs.

Instead, Becerra suggested that harvesting organs from newly born infants is protected by the state’s abortion statutes.

The “defendants willfully misrepresent the law on homicide in California,” he argued. “California law is clear that therapeutic abortion is not homicide.”

Pro-life advocates counter that there is nothing “therapeutic” about harvesting beating hearts from live infants.

RELATED ARTICLES:

ABP. VIGANÒ: Pope must give ‘Clear Statement’ on Christ’s Divinity

Canadian Prime Minister’s ‘New’ Sex Scandal

Insurance Provider Won’t Pay for Sex Abuse in Buffalo

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Warren Wants Trans Child to Approve Education Secretary

During CNN’s “Equality Town Hall” on Thursday night, presidential contender and radical leftist Elizabeth Warren applauded a “transgender American” child and then suggested the child assist her in choosing an education secretary if she wins the White House.

“My name is Jacob, and I am a 9-year-old transgender American,” Jacob Lemay said. Warren and the crowd applauded this as if it were an achievement. “What will you do in your first week as president to make sure kids like me feel safer in schools, and what do you think schools need to do better to make sure that I don’t have to worry about anything but my homework?” said Lemay, who was obviously coached by adult activists.

“I want to make sure that the person I think is the right secretary of education meets you and hears your story, and then I want you to tell me if you think that’s the right person and then we’ll make the deal,” Warren said.

While bullying is never acceptable, the right Secretary of Education should focus on actual education, not indoctrination or safe spaces.


Elizabeth Warren

During a question-and-answer session hosted by Congressional Black Caucus chairman Cedric Richmond at the historically black Dillard University in New Orleans, Warren delivered what she called “the hard truth about our criminal justice system: It’s racist … I mean front to back.” In the course of her remarks, the senator cited such things as disproportionate arrests of blacks for petty drug possession; an overburdened public defender system; and state laws that sometimes bar convicted felons from voting in political elections for the rest of their lives.

To learn more, click on the profile link here.

PODCAST: The Radical Feminists Who Are Fighting the Transgender Movement

As a leader of the radical feminist organization group Women’s Liberation Front, Natasha Chart doesn’t agree with conservatives on much. But when it comes to the transgender movement and protecting children from transgender ideology, she’s standing side by side with conservatives.

Chart spoke Thursday at The Heritage Foundation’s Summit on Protecting Children From Sexualization. On this week’s edition of “Problematic Women,” we sit down with her to find out why.

Plus, we take on the issue of deepfakes—the technology that enables you to transpose one person’s face over another’s, making it seem like that person is doing or saying something they are not—and how it’s becoming a bigger problem, particularly for women.

We also address Teen Vogue’s claim that Gen Z is the most progressive and politically independent, Demi Lovato’s apology for taking a celebrity birthright trip to Israel, and the now-infamous courtroom hug between Brandt Jean and Amber Guyger, the police officer who had killed his older brother.

And we leave you with Ellen Degeneres’ special message about George W. Bush.

Lauren Evans: Virginia and I are back in studio today with Natasha Chart of the Women’s Liberation Front.

Natasha, thanks for joining us.

Natasha Chart: Hey. How’s it going, Lauren? Thanks for having me on.

Evans: So happy to have you. Natasha, can you tell our listeners a little bit about who you are and what you do at WLF?

Chart: Sure. I’m the board chair of the Women’s Liberation Front, also commonly referred to as WLF. We are an all-volunteer organization of radical feminists.

We formed up in order to challenge the Obama administration’s directive ending single-sex spaces in federally-funded educational institutions because we thought someone should challenge that in court, and no one else seemed to be stepping up to do it, so we did.

Virginia Allen: What is the type of work that WLF is now pursuing?

Chart: We’re still doing the same kind of legal advocacy. Many other suits have been brought over this issue, [so] our resources are scarce. We don’t have any paid staff at all, so we’ve been mainly filing amicus briefs, friend-of-the-court briefs in other cases to advance our ideas of how the law should be interpreted and work from a radical feminist perspective.

We’ve been de-platformed in the media. The progressive press tries to pretend that we absolutely don’t exist, to the extent that they can, although that’s becoming harder for them now.

One of our rationales was, “Well, you can’t de-platform us from the court.” You’re not going to protest the federal court and be like, “We can’t allow this brief in.” Then, they’ll say, “Oh, well, this brief is very problematic, and we will reject it on that ground.” They don’t do that. We’re like, “Well, if we can’t be heard anywhere else, we can be heard in court, like everybody else.” There you go.

Evans: That’s a great approach to take. Natasha, you brought up that women’s-only spaces is one of the motivating factors for your group. Can you explain to our listeners why women’s-only spaces are important?

Chart: In our view, one of the most important things to feminism as a practice, as a process issue, is that women are discouraged from expressing solidarity with each other, across all kinds of lines.

And as part of our work, that seams over and over again, and it’s just reinforced every time there’s some round of fighting or argument or discussion over some new factional split, to encourage women to try to relate to each other in solidarity, to stand with each other, and to say, “We may not have everything in common, but we can agree on this, and I’m going to support you.” Or, “Even if I don’t want to be part of what you’re doing, I’m not going to try to tear you down.”

That’s just the foundation of any successful political movement, where you have to bring in a lot of people, and you can’t just rely on the tiny number of people who agree with you. There’s never going to be some huge, vast majority that agrees with you. This is a nation of … roughly [330] million people. You’re never going to get everybody to say, “Oh, yes. We all agree on this one thing.”

You can’t even get dentists to all agree on sugared gum, as they say. You can’t get that. You have to work. Women are discouraged from having that kind of solidarity with each other, that’s common to every successful political movement. You have to cultivate that. That’s the biggest stumbling block. Encouraging women-only space, it’s not a high, complicated concept, but it has transformative properties.

Allen: Natasha, groups like the Women’s March typically end up intertwining feminism and transgender issues, but WLF takes a different stand. Why?

Chart: Because gender identity is about men saying that they’re women. To some extent now, you have more women saying, “Oh, well, I’m really not like the other girls. I am actually a man,” for a number of reasons. That strain of activism would not have had so much success if it wasn’t men insisting that they have the right to be treated, in all aspects of the law and society, as women.

This is not only impossible—if you’re someone who has a commitment to speaking the truth, and relying on the facts, it’s intellectually offensive. It’s also offensive to feminist principles, which is about women expressing solidarity with each other.

Here are these men coming in and saying, “We need to be at the center of your movement. We need to be at the center of your concern. We are the most oppressed, most vulnerable women.” It’s some white guy [who’s] a married dad, and he’s an executive at a bank. That is not the most vulnerable, oppressed woman in the world. I’m sorry. That’s just not true.

It’s not feminist, and we can’t support it. A lot of women on the left, like in the Women’s March, they will not be allowed to do the other work that they want to do at all on the left because all of the men on the left have decided to say to these other men, “Oh, well, if you want to dress like that, and if you want to call yourself that, well, I guess you’re not a real man after all.” Which is pretty sexist of them, frankly. “You go off and be with the women.” That’s not our problem. We didn’t come up with that.

If men are worried about how effeminate men are treated, men should deal with that. Apparently, everybody agrees that men’s bathrooms are some terribly scary violent place. I don’t know what those guys are doing in there. Seriously, sort yourselves out. That’s not women’s problem to deal with.

Or, they’ll bring up, “Oh, well, these feminine-presenting men are treated badly in men’s prisons.” A lot of men are treated badly in men’s prisons. Men who are gay, young men, someone who’s just not very physically as strong as the other guys. Maybe the real issue that needs to be addressed there is that men’s prisons are terribly unsafe. Deal with that problem for everybody.

That’s its own issue. It deserves its own strain of advocacy. It deserves its own people speaking up strongly who’ve been affected by it. Lumping it in by saying, “This is a women’s issue. Just put this section of men who are affected in the women’s prison.” That doesn’t address the problem. It just puts it off on women. That’s not fair.

Evans: Natasha, you have been very busy this week. You are speaking about the Harris Supreme Court case that was heard on Oct. 8, which is the case where an employee of a funeral home transitioned from a man to a woman, transitioned from identifying as a man to identifying as a woman. Because they would not wear the men’s dress code for the funeral home, the funeral director fired the employee. Now, the employee is suing him for discrimination.

Can you tell us what were you doing, what were you speaking about, and why this case is so important to you?

Chart: Part of what I was speaking about yesterday is the intimidation tactics that have been levied against women on the left, the sexual harassment, the firings.

It’s like so many of the people who were with the ACLU demonstration were like, “Well, LGBT people have the right to work.” I agree with this, that those folks have the right to fair employment and nondiscrimination, all of us.

I’m like, “Yeah, and I’m over here, as a bisexual woman, standing in solidarity with my lesbian sisters,” many of us who’ve been fired, sexually harassed, received death threats, etc., for just saying, “No, men can’t be women. That’s not a real thing.” Where’s our right to be employed, and to have our opinions?

The thing about the Harris case, is it’s been presented very dishonesty, and in some cases, by ACLU staff, as being about sex-based dress codes. That was never a question before the court. If you read through the documents, it says that. That’s not under issue.

There’s a line in the petitioner’s brief the ACLU wrote for Amy Stevens, the plaintiff, that is talking about how Stevens would have been fine following the women’s dress code. That’s at the heart of this. That sex-based dress codes weren’t the thing. It’s their insistence on presenting sex itself as a stereotype of sex, which you can’t have a stereotype of something that has no objective definition.

A stereotype has to refer, at base, a real thing in the world that has some material definition that we can all recognize and wrap our heads around. It’s about saying not that you’re discriminating against me because I’m a man, and I want to wear a dress to work, and men should be allowed to wear dresses at work. Totally different question. He’s saying, “I am a man, I have the right to be treated as a woman, under the rules for women.” That would reinterpret sex in all of federal law.

I believe that even in the oral arguments the justices teased out that if this challenge wins, suits on all of these other issues where there are sex-based distinctions would almost certainly follow, and quite rapidly.

Then, at some point, you can’t make any distinction in the law on sex. The law is forbidden basically to see sex at all and recognize it. That simply erases women’s rights.

We would still have the right to vote, I’m sure, but anything that would be there as a redress for centuries of discrimination is just wiped out. It’s no longer for women. It’s not a women’s team if there are men in it. Then, it’s a mixed-sex team. That’s what it is.

It’s not a women’s locker room if there are men in it. Then, it’s a coed locker room, and a lot of women are going to stay back from things like that, so they’re not subject to indecent exposure, voyeurism, or in the case sports, so they’re not subject to injury. They’ve made the women’s amateur rugby teams in the U.K. mixed-sex, basically on the grounds of gender identification.

There was a story just out in The Times U.K. about this last week, that the coaches are quitting because they’re worried about women getting their bones broken in rugby matches with these guys.

It’s a very aggressive, very physical sport, and they’re worried about physical injury. They’re just basically being told, “Well, it’s the equalities law. We can’t do anything about it.” … It’s not fair.

Allen: At WLF, and for you personally, how do you define who a woman is?

Chart: A woman is an adult human female—the dictionary definition that Posie Parker over in the U.K. has made infamous with her T-shirts, stickers, and billboard campaigns.

That definition has just become terribly controversial, where people are saying, “Well, this is violence and transphobic.” It’s like, “This is just what women are.” It’s a biologically determined objective fact that we observe about people. It’s not assigned, you see someone’s sex. You don’t interpret that.

[For] 99.98% of people, it’s blatantly obvious whether they are male or female at birth. It doesn’t take any kind of specialty training to find this out. That something so basic has been made offensive and unsayable has had this massive cascade of problems.

If you got to see the rally yesterday—just like in sports and employment law, all kinds of nondiscrimination law, in terms of whether or not you can say when you go to the doctor and you’re a woman, “I would like a woman to perform my exam,” or, “I would like a woman to chaperone my exam, if there’s only a male doctor available.”

Even something so basic to your bodily privacy and sense of safety as that is under question, and it’s all because there’s this one lie that has to be defended at all costs now. That lie is that people can change sex by an act of will. No matter how many laws you make saying that that’s possible, it’s just not possible.

Evans: Natasha, I want to—I guess transition is a bad word to use—but I want to switch topics. You spoke yesterday at [The Heritage Foundation], at the Summit on Protecting Children From Sexualization. What is your biggest concern when these gender identity issues not just affect adults, but they affect our children?

Chart: The most blatant problem with that is the physical impact on the children who are transitioned, which is that a lot of them are irreversibly and permanently losing all aspects of adult sexual function.

Some of these children, and pardon for the blunt language, but they will never be able to have an orgasm their entire life. They will never experience this because their sexual organs have been removed by the time they were of majority age to be able to make these kinds of decisions.

We saw the case of Jazz Jennings. The whole country saw that. You can say, “Well, it’s horrible to talk about a child like this.” I didn’t put that on television, this poor kid celebrating the physical removal of one’s healthy body parts. That’s the biggest impact.

I honestly don’t know why that wasn’t the moment where a whole bunch of people watching that show, and patting themselves on the back for being inclusive, didn’t stop and think to themselves, “Hey, wait a minute. What’s going on here? What are we celebrating here? What if that was my kid celebrating a really serious operation like that to themselves, a cosmetic procedure?”

I feel like it’s a huge lack of empathy, that again, society will see a boy who maybe acts in a way that we consider effeminate, and like, “Well, it doesn’t matter what happens to him. I guess he’s not a real boy. He’s not a real man. Whatever happens to his body, we don’t care.” I don’t understand why that didn’t stop it.

The other problem is that these kids are being presented as having the adult capacity and agency to be able to make decisions like that. That is very much in contradiction to, for instance, a lot of the advocacy groups that used to speak to me, but now will no longer do so, would talk about the school-to-prison pipeline. One of the concepts that’s really important to that is that it dehumanizes children to present them as fully capable of making moral decisions on the same level as adults.

If you have a child, and this happens very often to black and brown children in the school system, where they do some stupid kid thing. Like most people, you remember back in your life, you did some kid thing, probably a lot of us. I know for sure, I look back and I think, “Oh my God, I’m so glad nobody saw that, and I didn’t have to face consequences as an adult for that because that was really dumb, and I didn’t understand.”

Most of us had the grace from society for the adults around us to be like, “Kid, you messed up. Let me tell you about it. Let’s work on it. Let’s not do it again. … You’re still young enough to figure this out.”

These kids are having that protection entirely stripped away from them. They’re being allowed to make very serious decisions that they don’t understand, that they haven’t experienced, because they haven’t gone through puberty.

There are these girls who are being put through menopause before they’ve had puberty. … Menopause is physically awful, as many, many women can attest, although this is not a thing you talk about a lot. But putting a 14-year-old through it on purpose, she’s never gone through having all those feelings and developmental experiences that they’re unpleasant.

Nobody likes that. Nobody has a good time. Nobody looks back and thinks, “Oh, puberty. That was the best time of my life. I miss the acne. I miss the aching, and the weirdness, and the feeling awkward all the time, and not knowing where your arms and legs are because all of a sudden, they’re like 6 inches longer than they were last year.” You’re like, “Oh my God, what am I doing?”

Nobody liked that, but it’s important for your formation, as an adult person, to go through that, and to be protected from the consequences of just being that unsettled in yourself, and going through all of that with your peers.

These children are being denied that, and they’re being dehumanized by people treating them like adults too soon. My heart aches for these kids.

Allen: As Lauren mentioned, you spoke on the Summit on Protecting Children From Sexualization. That whole summit can be found on the Heritage Foundation YouTube page. I want to ask, how did WLF end up getting connected with The Heritage Foundation? Did you ever see yourself aligning so closely with conservatives?

Chart: Wow. Well, we’re part of the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition. It’s an informal discussion network of women from, like, every political perspective. There are liberal pagan goddess worshipers in there, and there are conservative Christians of almost every description. I would still consider myself politically, my personal ideas, I’m a fairly mainstream to progressive Democrat.

We’re all represented in there but there’s a woman whose child was convinced that they were the opposite sex, and has been pushing hard to take steps to transition. She tried for four years to get someone, anyone, to please talk about this issue, and to raise it in public in a venue where policymakers and the media would start to understand that behind all this happy talk about inclusion and affirmation, there are real harms being done to real people.

There are physical injuries. There is destruction of family relationships going on. People’s hearts are breaking, and they feel like they can’t speak out at all.

She tried for so long. The only people who answered her, and were willing to give her a platform to talk about this, were the folks here at Heritage.

She invited us to come because we were all getting all of this flack already for being public about opposing gender identity under our own names. She asked if we could help supply speakers because the parents of these children can’t come out and talk. They can’t say this stuff.

For one thing, they have concerns about their children’s medical privacy. … Some of the parents came to the summit, and were talking with us before that. One couple was talking about how they felt they couldn’t talk to anyone in their church. Or, how they feel ostracized, and they have to hide things from people in local political groups, where they had once felt very welcome.

This issue has made them feel entirely cut off from their communities, and they’re afraid of significant public ostracism, of being cut off from other networks. They asked us to give voice to this.

The beginning of that panel is my colleague on the board, Jennifer Chavez, reading a number of parents’ stories, parents who could not come out and do that themselves.

That was how that happened. I wouldn’t have predicted that that would have happened five years ago. I probably would have said a number of terribly unpleasant and uncollegial things about the idea of even walking in the door here, but here we are.

Evans: We’re glad that you’re here.

Chart: Thank you.

Evans: I do want to plug … a short documentary [we did] on Hands Across the Aisle, and I did get to meet a lot of your members. It was just a incredible experience. I’ll make sure to put that documentary in the show notes, if any of our listeners want to learn more about the group.

Natasha, we ask pretty much all of our guests this question: [Do] you identify as a feminist? … I imagine you would, so I’m going to change the question a little bit, why is identifying as a feminist so important to you?

Chart: It’s because of … what I was saying at first about solidarity with other women, there are certain policy positions that I do think are at the heart of feminism in an outward way. Primarily, it’s about standing up to say, “I am a woman who puts other women first, to whatever extent that I can, wherever I can.”

I do get people asking, “How can you be a feminist and talk at The Heritage Foundation?” It’s like, “Well, I am a feminist. If I show up at The Heritage Foundation, I’m going to do whatever I can while I’m there to be putting women first in whatever way makes sense, in whatever way I can advance those interests that are common to all of us. That’s just what I’m going to do, wherever I am.”

The women in Iran are working on, “How can we be allowed to go out in public without having to wear religious headgear?”

Women in Saudi Arabia are working on, “How do we have the right just to be in public at all, on our own recognizance, as adult citizens?”

Women in the U.S., there are women alive today who remember when they could not get a line of credit in their own name, when they wouldn’t have been allowed to buy a house, when most colleges were closed to them, when most professions were closed to them entirely.

You just work on whatever makes sense at the time, with the resources you can. That goal is always women acting in solidarity with other women. There are women everywhere, so you can be a feminist everywhere that you are.

Evans: Natasha, we really appreciate your time, and that you joined us on the podcast today. Thank you so much.

Chart: Thank you so much for inviting me. It’s been a delight. Take care.

COMMENTARY BY

Lauren Evans is the multimedia producer for The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Lauren. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal podcast is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

What You Need to Know About the Transgender Case at the Supreme Court

This interview, which is lightly edited, originally aired on “Problematic Women.”

Lauren Evans: Welcome back. Virginia and I are in the studio today with religious liberty superstar Emilie Kao. Emilie is an attorney and director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation and has spent the past 14 years fighting for religious liberty. Welcome to the show, Emilie.

Emilie Kao: Thank you, Lauren.

Evans: There’s a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court where a man who identifies as a woman is alleging sex discrimination after being fired from their job at a funeral home. Can you tell us more about this case, Emilie?

Kao: Yes. The Harris Funeral Homes case originated when a male employee of a funeral home wanted to start presenting as a woman. He wanted to start dressing as a woman, and the funeral home has a sex-specific dress code, which is legal.

The funeral home owner, Thomas Rost, was very concerned, not only about his employees, his female employees, who might have to share bathrooms with the male employee, but also about the effect on the people whom the funeral homes serve. Because these are people who are grieving at a time when they’re very focused on their emotional loss, and it could be very distracting and even disturbing for them to see a man dressed as a woman.

So when the employee refused to comply with the dress code according to his sex, they decided to part ways with him and offered him a severance package.

What happened next was that the employee and the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, got involved and sued the funeral home. And the case has percolated up through the courts. They lost in the lower court and now it’s gotten to the Supreme Court.

Virginia Allen: Emilie, I want to ask you just to provide a definition for sexual discrimination.

Kao: The correct way to understand discrimination on the basis of sex—it is when one person is treated more disfavorably than a person of the other category.

So if you have a person who is male who is treated worse than a person who’s female because of their sex, that is sex discrimination. If you have a female who is treated worse than a male, that is sex discrimination.

Sex discrimination is not merely when you treat two people differently because we treat males and females differently all the time. That’s why we have some of the other sex-segregated spaces and events that we’ve talked about before. That’s why we have sex-segregated bathrooms. We have sex-segregated sports. Because the courts and the American people have realized men and women are different, and so there’s nothing discriminatory about having sex segregation in appropriate ways, sex-segregated spaces, sex-segregated events that involve a person’s physical capacity.

But what the people in the Harris Funeral Homes case are arguing on behalf of the employee who is identifying as transgender is that he was treated more poorly because of his status as a person who identifies as transgender.

He’s a male who wants to dress as a female. He’s a male who wants to use female restrooms. But that is not sex discrimination because the funeral home would have treated somebody of the opposite sex the same way if they manifested in the same way that this employee is.

So if you were a female employee of that funeral home and you wanted to identify as a male and use the male restroom and wear the male clothing that’s required by the dress code and be referred to as a male, the treatment would be the same of that female employee. So that’s why this case does not actually qualify for the sex discrimination category.

Evans: What was crazy to me about this case is that no laws were technically broken, correct?

Kao: Well, the claim of the EEOC and the employee is that the funeral home owner has violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

The whole theory of the transgender-identifying employee is that sex actually means gender identity, which there’s nothing in the text that says gender identity. But they have a theory that sex should mean gender identity.

So they’re essentially saying that the EEOC can redefine sex, and they now want the Supreme Court to redefine sex. And the Supreme Court should stay in its own lane, which is to interpret the law, not make the law, which is Congress’ duty.

Allen: So, Emilie, this case is going to come before the Supreme Court on Oct. 8, where it will decide, hopefully, whether federal civil rights law that bars job discrimination on the basis of sex protects transgender people. What do you think we can expect?

Kao: I think you can expect from the funeral home side that they will say Congress should stick with the original public meaning of what the word sex meant in 1964. And that is it established a way of interpreting the law that the court should refer to the original public meeting, which means, what did a regular person in the general public understand sex to mean, not what did a particular member of Congress think?

I think everyone pretty much agrees that in 1964, the word sex meant biological sex, male or female, not a person’s subjective self-perception of their gender, which is what gender identity means.

So I think that there will be a lot of discussion about the procedural part, which is, what is the correct role of the Congress versus what is the correct role of the courts?

As your listeners may know, the Congress has actually been trying to amend the Civil Rights Act recently through the Equality Act to add the classes of sexual orientation and gender identity. So the fact that the Equality Act is being introduced in Congress sort of begs the question, “Well, if sex already meant gender identity, why would you have to add it through this legislation?”

We also know that through the decades, Congress has actually dealt with the question of gender identity. Sometimes they have added it to legislation like the Violence Against Women Act, but sometimes they have declined, they have projected the addition of the term gender identity. So the historical record’s pretty clear. Congress knows that gender identity and sex are two different things.

Allen: So if SCOTUS rules that gender identity does not apply to federal civil rights law, will that create a roadblock for Congress to move forward with the passage of the Equality Act?

Kao: I think it will clarify what the current understanding of the Civil Rights Act should be, and I think it will make it more difficult for the EEOC to continue to politicize these cases. But I don’t think it will make it more difficult in a procedural sense for Congress to try and pass something like the Equality Act.

However, I do think it could make the public support for something like the Equality Act change. Because I think one of the interesting things about this case is that it will bring to the forefront some of the issues that we’ve talked about, how gender identity essentially erases women as a coherent category in the law.

We’ve seen the manifestation of this in several cases like the homeless shelter in Alaska. They were sued because they would not allow a man into a space that was reserved for women who’d been battered, and abused, and trafficked. The whole theory behind the male plaintiff’s case was that he was being discriminated against on the basis of gender identity.

So we see from that case that when you introduce the idea of gender identity, it erases the protections in the law for women, for their safety, and privacy. And there are a number of other cases with women’s sports and with, unfortunately, a girl in a public school in Georgia being sexually assaulted after the school adopted a transgender bathroom policy.

Allen: Emilie, I’m glad that you brought up the Alaska case about the homeless shelter. I want to get into that for a moment. Let me just give a little bit of background to our listeners if they’re not familiar.

The Hope Center is a Christian nonprofit women’s homeless shelter in Anchorage, Alaska. Right now, we have some great news that we just received this week that they are now free to continue serving homeless women without the threat of looming legal action or even being shut down.

The reason why that threat arose to them was in January 2018, a drunk and injured man dressed in a pink nightgown tried to gain access to the Hope Center. During the day, the center does serve men and women by providing them with meals, laundry, and shower services, job skills training, and clothing. But in order to provide a safe space for homeless women, the shelter at night does only house women.

So when this intoxicated, biological man identifying as a woman came knocking on the center’s door after hours, the Hope Center sent the individual to the hospital to get the care he needed. They even paid for the taxi. But then the Hope Center faced a complaint from the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission claiming that the center had discriminated against this individual because of his gender identity. This appeared to be an attempt to attack the center’s Christian beliefs.

At that point, the Christian nonprofit legal defense firm Alliance Defending Freedom stepped in to help and they filed a lawsuit in federal court on the center’s behalf. In August, that court issued an order that temporarily stopped the city from misplaying this law against the Hope Center.

So, Emilie, I want to ask you, how big of a win is this, and do you think this is actually the end of this case or will there be maybe an appeal?

Kao: I think it’s a very big win, not only for the Hope Center but for similarly situated women’s shelters and other spaces for women around the country. I think it’s a great precedent. My understanding is that there was a settlement. So if there was a settlement, I don’t expect that this will be relitigated.

Evans: One thing that I’ve learned since this case has come out is that Anchorage actually has a higher than normal population of women who have been sex trafficked because it’s kind of a middle point between Russia and the United States. So … these women, they need a safe space.

How unique is this case, and are faith-based women’s homeless shelters under attack pretty much everywhere?

Kao: Unfortunately, this is not a totally unique case because we’ve also seen a case in California called Poverello House, I believe it is a secular women’s shelter, where the women were forced to shower with a man who was apparently making, they allege, lewd comments toward them in the showers.

It was actually the women in that case who sued because they did not want to be housed with a man and have to share intimate facilities with a man.

So I think that, unfortunately, wherever we see these laws that have sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to the other protected categories, there is the possibility that women’s safety and privacy will be compromised in spaces that used to be for their protection.

Evans: The name of the act is the Equality Act, and it puts, I think, our listeners and people who believe in religious liberty in a hard place when somebody is like, “Man, why aren’t you for equality?”

So what is kind of misunderstood about this case, and what are some talking points that our listeners can use when put in this hard place of wanting to love all people but wanting to protect women?

Kao: I think the term equality has been misused. I think that one basic thing you can say is that all people have dignity and deserve to be treated with respect. All people have equal status, but not all ideas have equal status. And we don’t have to agree on all ideas.

What the Equality Act would do is basically adopt a government orthodoxy on sexual orientation and gender identity. Now, those two categories are distinct from many of the other categories that are protected in the Civil Rights Act. So if you think of race and sex, those are both biological and immutable traits. Gender identity is a person’s subjective perception of their own sex, which people have the freedom to believe that, but people also should have the freedom to disagree with that, to say, “Well, I think you actually are either a male or a female,” and they don’t believe in gender fluidity.

Then, the category of sexual orientation, again, that also involves a person’s behavior or their conduct, which we are free to have different opinions about behavior and conduct. That is not an immutable characteristic. So, unfortunately, what the Equality Act would do is it would lead to a government orthodoxy, and that will lead to the punishment of dissenters.

Some of those dissenters will be people who have religious convictions. Some of those dissenters will be people with moral convictions. And some of those dissenters, as we’ve seen from the women who oppose the Equality Act, their objections are based on science and based on concerns for women’s safety, and privacy, and equality.

So, unfortunately, the Equality Act would establish a nationwide orthodoxy and punish disagreement.

Allen: Emilie, with cases like the Hope Center case, do you see this as the left weaponizing anti-discrimination law and then using that to attack faith-based organizations?

Kao: I think that the treatment of people of faith over the past few years by the left, especially by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and actually some members of Congress, has been incredibly intolerant.

You look at some of the rhetoric, the way that they describe people like Jack Phillips, the baker from Colorado. In Colorado, some of the government officials compared him to a Nazi and a slave owner. When you look at the targeting of organizations, businesses like his, with boycotts and picketing and not only that but death threats, harassing phone calls.

That’s, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. We’ve seen that with many of the wedding vendor cases, many of the cases involving sexual orientation and gender identity. There’s been verbal harassment, and economic threats, boycotts, and also sometimes threats of physical violence.

So, unfortunately, I think our culture is at a point right now that the left’s intolerance of religious beliefs about sexuality, and marriage, and even sex differences is increasing. So the use of these laws to punish people for disagreement, I think, is part of an overall picture of increasing intolerance toward people who simply hold the view that marriage is between a man and a woman and that there are two sexes, male and female.

Evans: Emilie, we talk a lot on the show about the Equality Act and these transgender issues, but at the end of the day, we’re blessed in the United States to have the First Amendment that protects our right to religious liberty. A lot of people in the world don’t have that First Amendment protection, and you [look at] a lot of issues talking about international religious freedom. And I know President Trump made a speech … at the U.N. about international religious freedom.

Can you give our listeners kind of an update about what’s going on around the world with these religious freedom issues?

Kao: President Trump gave a landmark speech and elevated religious freedom at the U.N. General Assembly to a level that it’s never been elevated before, which is very critical because the U.N. tends to downplay the importance of religious freedom even though over 80% of the world’s population lives under serious restrictions of religious freedom. So it really put the U.N. on notice and many of the countries that are the worst violators of religious freedom on notice.

I thought a particularly interesting part of the event that he held was to spotlight the survivors of religious persecution, and some people who were there had family members who are still in prison in places like China and Iran.

So I think that the Trump administration has added at the U.N. General Assembly to the work that it’s been doing for the past few years with the International Religious Freedom Ministerial Summit that Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo and Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback have hosted.

They’ve done a great job on building multilateral cooperation. Their summits have brought together government leaders from over 100 countries, and it has fostered more cooperation in places like the Middle East, and Asia, and Europe to combat religious freedom violations.

Allen: Emilie, I want to take just a moment to let you share a little bit about an event that’s happening at The Heritage Foundation next week. Earlier in the show, Lauren and I took some time to talk about the epidemic of child abuse through child pornography. And there is an event that you’re hosting next week at Heritage that addresses this crisis. Could you tell us a little bit more about that?

Kao: Thanks, Virginia. Yes, we are very concerned about this growing epidemic of children being sexualized by adults through culture, and education, and health care. Sometimes, this is actually as a result of government-led initiatives, which means that it is actually the use of taxpayer money.

So we will be looking at issues like pornography and trafficking, also the introduction of comprehensive sexuality education in public schools, the introduction of sexual orientation, gender identity curriculum, the transgender policies, and private facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms, and the increasing politicization of health care for children with gender dysphoria that’s leading to harmful treatments of testosterone and surgeries on children. So we will be bringing together thought leaders from around the country to discuss these issues with one another.

Hopefully, this will be a great way for parents to learn about what they can do. We’ll be introducing the national parent resource guide on the transgender trend, which is a very helpful tool for parents, gives them practical steps that they can take if a transgender policy is being introduced in their school district, ways that they can talk to their school, and it tells them what their rights are.

So we’re really looking forward to bringing together all of these experts from around the country to find solutions to this growing epidemic.

Allen: When is the event taking place, and how can people register?

Kao: The event is Wednesday, Oct. 9 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. They can watch online, and they can register on the Heritage website. We will have three panels on culture, education, and health care, in that order.

>>> On Wednesday, Oct. 9, The Heritage Foundation and Family Policy Alliance will co-host a Summit on Protecting Children from Sexualization to examine these issues in-depth. The summit also will debut the National Parents Resource Guide on the Transgender Trend. RSVP for the event or watch the livestream here.

We really encourage all parents to tune in at some point to this summit because it will give them an overview of how children are being targeted for sexualization, will give them practical tools to fight back, and it will introduce them to some of the federal and state policies that can help solve some of these problems.

Evans: If you are a podcast person, all Heritage events are turned into podcasts. You can listen to it. It’s almost immediate, usually takes an hour or two for us to get it uploaded. Also, a lot of the participants in the panel will be doing interviews with The Daily Signal, which will run throughout the week and probably into next week.

Allen: Thank you so much, Emilie, for joining us. We really appreciate your time and you sharing your expertise with us.

Kao: Thank you.

COLUMN BY

Lauren Evans

Lauren Evans is the multimedia producer for The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Lauren. Twitter: @laurenelizevans.

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Podcast: What to Expect in the New Supreme Court Term

‘Hundreds’ of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex.

Rep. Adam Schiff’s Impeachment History

Reactions to My Tweet Reveal the Ignorant Brutality of Young Socialists and Communists

The President Is Right: We Must Clean Up America’s Cities


A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All right reserved.

Human Life International lists Products that use Aborted Fetuses – Warning gruesome!

Two current issues that separate the two major political parties are climate change and abortion.

One party believes that the climate is changing but mankind has little to do with the changes. The other party believes that it is mankind that is destroying the planet and therefor mankind must be punished (with taxes and regulation) or even cannibalized in order to save the planet. A closely related issue is abortion. Why? Because by having fewer babies, or no babies at all, one can save the planet from extinction according to the policies of one major political party candidate for President of the United States, Senator Bernie Sanders.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS

Planned Parenthood and Environmentalists have joined forces to save planet earth by controlling global population. In the Planned Parenthood Global booklet titled Health Has No Borders on page 10 describes the intersection of the abortion industry and environmental movement, as a global partnership:

Women’s health is directly linked to the state of their environment. When rural environments become unsustainable, it is women whose lives are most disrupted. To address this issue, Planned Parenthood partners with local environmental advocates to integrate women’s health and empowerment into the work that they do. [Emphasis added]

Health Has No Borders describes how Planned Parenthood partnered with environmental advocates like Fundaeco (Foundation for Ecodevelopment and Conservation) in Guatemala:

In Guatemala we work with Fundaeco, one of the country’s largest environmental organizations. Before partnering with Planned Parenthood Global, Fundaeco had done some community organizing, but felt they had hit a brick wall in disseminating their message. To truly get their campaigns going, they determined they needed to focus not just on the local environment, but on the human rights of the local population.

Enter Planned Parenthood Global.

We made an initial investment to pilot three community health centers in one of the protected areas in southeast Guatemala. To ensure local ownership, these health centers were created by donations of land or supplies from local villages within the protected areas. [Emphasis added]

The founder of Planned Parenthood Margaret Sanger wrote:

The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

This mantra is being carried out globally, and funded by local governments and organizations such as the United Nations.

SELLING HUMAN FETUSES

On July 19, 2015 we published an article titled Kraft, Pepsi, and Nestle Using Aborted Babies For Flavor Additives in which listed dozens of companies that use fetal tissue to enhance the flavor of their products. Note: Food and beverages do not contain any aborted fetal material; however, they may be tastier because of it.

Since that time the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) has published a series of undercover videos detailing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of fetuses to companies for profit. Here is just one CMP video:

Andrea Byrnes from Human Life International published a column titled Products That Use Aborted Fetuses.

Byrnes writes:

Do some products contain fetal parts? The short gruesome answer: Yes.

Today’s consumer products are not the soap and lampshades of recycled Nazi concentration camp victims. The new utilitarian use of people is a sophisticated enterprise, not visible to the human eye.

Byrnes looks at three areas where fetal body parts are used:

  1. Food and Drink
  2. Cosmetics
  3. Vaccines and Medicine

While actual fetal body parts are not contained in food and drink products they are contained in cosmetics, vaccines and medicine. Byrnes reported:

The fountain of youth…is babies.

Commercially, it’s known as Processed Skin Proteins (PSP), developed at the University of Lausanne to heal burns and wounds by regenerating traumatized skin. The fetal skin cell line was taken from an electively aborted baby whose body was donated to the University.

[ … ]

The Vaccine Card at the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI) website lists over 21 vaccines and medical products that contain aborted fetal cell lines. The Card is updated yearly, and also lists ethical vaccine alternatives when there are any.

EUGENICS

“Eugenists imply or insist that a woman’s first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. “ – Margaret Sanger, Eugenist and founder of Planned Parenthood.

In a column titled New York Times’ ‘1619 Project,’ the MacArthur Foundation and Eugenics we wrote about the 1998 book “Archons And Acolytes: The New Power Elite” written by Clarence C. Walton wrote:

Eugenics became a fashionable cause, and courses in the subject were soon introduced by a number of colleges and universities. The Rockefeller Foundation provided ample financial support, generously funding international conferences and research projects, and earning unwanted praise from the Nazis who welcomed the international respectability that their eugenicists needed. Today the Ford and MacArthur Foundations have also made population control a major objective of their funding efforts. In the first phase of the eugenics movement, artificial birth control (with Margaret Sanger identified as its major force) became the preferred method for controlling population growth.” [Emphasis added]

Eugenics was created in the United States and its goal was and remains “population control.” Eugenics was quickly adapted by the Nazis to further their ideology of a “genetically superior” Aryan race.

Today eugenics is called genetics. It’s goal is the same, a genetically pure race.

A genetically pure race requires the ultimate in government control. The Green New Deal provides for tyrannical government control over every aspect of our lives and lively hoods. The battle cry is “save the planet.” Their success will measure in the reduction of numbers of people globally. It’s ultimately about the elites, in government and research labs, determining who lives and who dies.

About Andrea Byrnes:

Writer Andrea Byrnes was the first producer of U.S. March for Life coverage at EWTN Global Catholic Network, which she continued to supervise for seven years. She attended her first HLI conference in 1989, where she first met Servant of God Dr. Jerome Lejeune. She and her husband would later pray for Lejeune’s intercession for her son’s health difficulties discovered before birth, and thanks be to God, he is thriving.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mapped-out: Where It’s Dangerous in America to Be Born Alive

Stillborn Baby Showed Signs of Life, But This Doctor Put Him in the Morgue Fridge to Freeze to Death

Babies Born Alive After Abortion Can be Left to Die in 16 States

Planned Parenthood Fights To Hide Evidence Of Selling Fetal Tissue In Daleiden Trial

Moroccan Feminists Vow To Abort Their Babies to Protest Laws Protecting the Unborn

Comprehensive List Of Companies That Use Aborted Fetal Cells As Flavour

Meet the Company Buying Planned Parenthood’s Baby ‘Specimens’

Prager U misses the key piece on leftist-Tolerance

NC Legislators Working To Overturn Gay Marriage: “Tell It To Satan!”

RELATED VIDEO: The Vortex — Pagan Prayer and Tree Planting at the Vatican.

We Must Fight the Sexualization of Children by Adults

Childhood used to be a time of innocence. But as our culture has become more and more sexualized, children have become the casualties of adult exploitation.

The New York Times just reported that more than 45 million online photos and videos of children being sexually abused were reported by tech companies, more than double what they found the previous year.

In culture, education, and health care, American children also are increasingly targeted for sexual messages, images, and themes at younger ages. Sometimes, this is even supported by taxpayer money through government-led initiatives.

Our culture is saturated with sexual content that was once considered too risqué for children, and social media has accelerated the spread of pornography to young viewers.

The American Academy of Pediatrics reports that in the United States, 42% of children between 10 and 17 have viewed pornography online.

Social media also has become prime hunting ground for sex traffickers. In March 2019, Instagram was reportedly the leading social media platform for child grooming by sexual predators.

A recent poll of 2,000 teens found that nearly 75% had received pornographic direct messages from strangers, even if they had a private account. And 55% of victims of sex trafficking in 2015 met their abuser through a website, app, or text.

The sexualization of children is occurring in brick-and-mortar spaces too as “drag queen story hours,” in which cross-dressing adult entertainers interact with children in taxpayer-funded local libraries, have appeared across the country.

In education, the United Nations promotes Comprehensive Sexual Education around the world. In America, groups such as Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, and the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network promote “comprehensive” sexual education, which includes instruction about homosexual practices, transgender theory, and abortion.

Colorado mandates such curriculum for students in elementary school and recently considered stripping away parental opt-out provisions.

Sexual orientation and gender identity curriculum is not limited to sex education. California, New Jersey, and Illinois passed laws requiring schools to teach about the “political, social, and economic contributions of … lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people,” which frequently include dubious assertions about the sexual orientation or gender identity of historical figures that are irrelevant to their achievements.

The House of Representatives recently passed the Equality Act, which would amend Title IV of the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics. This curriculum could be required if the Equality Act were to become law.

The Department of Education under the Obama administration pressured schools to implement transgender policies that pose risks to children’s privacy and safety. In Georgia, Pascha Thomas’ 5-year-old daughter was sexually assaulted in a restroom at an elementary school that adopted a gender identity-based access policy without notifying parents.

Efforts to expose children to age-inappropriate content and make parental notification and opt-out difficult or impossible undermine parents’ constitutional right to control their children’s education on sensitive topics such as human sexuality. Public schools should not become a place where children are exposed to radical sexual ideology.

Finally, the increased prevalence of transgender ideology in culture and education has narrowed the treatment options for children with gender dysphoria.

Transgender activists pressure both doctors and parents to consent to “gender-affirming medical treatment” for children who otherwise likely would grow to accept their bodies. Such treatment typically starts with puberty blockers at age 8, cross-sex hormones at 14, and genital surgery for boys as young as 17. In one case, a 13-year-old girl was given a double mastectomy.

The detrimental side effects of hormones, such as increased depression, loss of bone density, and sterility, are well-known. Yet 15 states have banned counseling for gender-dysphoric children that would help them become comfortable with their biological sex.

The Equality Act, if passed, would make medical professionals liable to lawsuits for gender identity discrimination if they declined to do “sex reassignment” procedures on children, regardless of conscientious objection or best medical judgment.

The Trump administration reversed policies under the Obama administration that created the same liabilities, but parents continue to find that the medical system and the legal system are working against them. In Ohio, a couple lost custody of their daughter because they refused to allow her to take testosterone.

Combating the premature sexualization of children by adults requires focused attention from both lawmakers and courageous parents.

On Wednesday, Oct. 9, The Heritage Foundation and Family Policy Alliance will co-host a Summit on Protecting Children from Sexualization to examine these issues in-depth. The summit also will debut the National Parents Resource Guide on the Transgender Trend. RSVP for the event or watch the livestream here.

COMMENTARY BY

Andrea Jones is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Emilie Kao is director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Common Core Promotes Socialism and LGBTQ Lies

Teacher Fired Over Trans Pronouns Sues School

I Spent a Year as a Trans Man. Doctors Failed Me at Every Turn.

‘Hundreds’ of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex.


A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!
GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


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

Miracle Man, Trump Republican & Proud Hispanic Frank Acosta Sr. Announces Congressional Campaign for MI- 11

NORTHVILLE, Mich. /PRNewswire/ — Frank Acosta, Sr. of Northville Michigan officially announced his campaign for the US House of Representatives in Michigan’s 11th Congressional District as a Republican. Frank is an entrepreneur from the Information and Communications Technology industry. He currently oversees the daily operations of the Frank Acosta Foundation established for the benefit of cancer patients who need spiritual help. Frank was inspired to start his foundation and publish his book “God, Cancer and Me” after Jesus’s prayer helped heal him from stage 4 throat cancer in 2010.

“I am running for Congress because the current democratic majority in the House of Representatives is leading this country off a cliff. Rather than legislate, they only produce media sound bites. They have abdicated their power to pass laws in lieu of pushing the President to issue Executive Orders. When the sitting President has been from their own party they cheer or look the other way when bad things happen. When the President is a Republican, they use the Federal Courts to impede his actions. This is especially acute with regards to immigration.”

“Mexico and the United States both are forced to commit precious resources to the current border crisis. These resources could be reallocated to projects that better serve their citizens if each country could secure their borders in a sensible and effective manner. Working together, we can solve these problems. However, the far left in America has done everything in its power to subvert rational solutions and inflame the crisis. First they shifted the language so we can’t have intelligent conversations about lawful immigration. Now they are denying the basic idea that sovereign nations have a duty to protect their borders and establish rules for citizenship.”

“I don’t think the voters of Michigan’s 11th District want to continue with this nonsense. In the real world, we try to find solutions that would benefit both sides of a deal. In the political world, it appears to be more important that your opponents fail than it does to actually solve problems. Look at DACA. The President is ready to solve that issue but the congress won’t pass legislation that he can sign into law.”

“If Congress and the Executive Branch can work together, along with Mexico and the other nations of the Americas, we could secure our borders and implement sensible immigration policy. This could include better guest worker programs and increase the prosperity of the whole hemisphere. This would improve the commercial success of every nation involved. Given time and progress, it may re-open conversations about the consensual annexation of Mexico as a creative way to strengthen the future of all North Americans.”

About Frank Acosta

Frank Acosta has lived in Northville, Michigan since 2013. He has been a resident of the State of Michigan for 36 years. Frank was the President of Video Tape Plus. Before this he worked for Fuji Photo Film Corporation for over 18 years. Frank was born in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He served in the U.S. Army from 1967-1969 in the Communications Center in Darmstadt, Germany.

Frank’s mother was born in Dr Arroyo Nuevo Leon Mexico in 1904 and his father was born in San Angelo, Texas in 1899 as a first generation Mexican-American. His parents loved this country for the freedom and opportunities it provided.

Frank speaks Spanish. He supports the second amendment and Pro-Life movement. He believes in fair trade between nations.

Frank is a member of Our Lady of Good Council Catholic Church in Plymouth, Michigan.

For more information visit: FrankAcosta2020.com

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Pot Bill Tokes the Line on Public Safety

When the alarm went off at Jennifer Hrobuchak’s work, the 22-year-old district manager didn’t think twice. She got in her car in the early morning hours and headed off to the store to investigate. The new college graduate, who had hoped to have a career saving people from drugs, never saw the man run through the red light straight at her. At 82 miles per hour, he slammed Jennifer’s car across the road into a building that crushed and killed her. After seven years of telling the story, her mom, Corinne, still gets emotional. And it’s no wonder. The man who hit her was high on marijuana and walked away from the scene completely unharmed. Her daughter never walked anywhere again.

There are thousands of stories like Jennifer’s. Agonized parents like Jeffrey Veatch’s whose son died snorting heroin, only after marijuana experimentation led him there. After the unimaginable pain of losing a child, the idea that anyone would make it easier for kids to get addicted to pot is hard for any of them to fathom. And yet, last Wednesday, in the U.S. House, more than 300 members of Congress put their names behind a bill that would help legitimize a business that’s destroying and endangering lives.

It was the first ever vote on a stand-alone cannabis bill, not that the name would have told you so. The SAFE Banking Act, one of the more ridiculously named pieces of legislation in the Democratic House, would make it easier for marijuana companies to “open checking accounts and get business loans.” Pot companies argue that it would make the entire market safer, since they tend to operate on a “cash-only basis” or pay sky-high fees to the banks who are willing to work with them. Amazingly, 321 members of Congress (including 91 Republicans) fell for this logic, which encourages banks to get involved in the sale of what the federal government still considers an illegal substance.

Luke Dean Niforatos, chief of staff for Smart Approaches to Marijuana, can’t believe that the U.S. House would green-light a bill that would allow billions of dollars to flow into the pot market. Calling it the “Safe Vaping Act,” Niforatos told listeners on “Washington Watch” that this would mean “tons more money for these companies to create more marijuana, vaping oils, more marijuana vapes, which would feed into the crisis that we’re talking about right now today.

“It defies comprehension that the House would pass this,” he argued. “And now it’s in the Senate. And you have a number of senators — [even solid Christians who are]… being swayed by this argument that marijuana industry needs access to these banks. You know, they need to hear from everyone loud and clear that there’s a vaping crisis going on. The last thing we should do is allow money in to this industry that’s putting out these marijuana vapes.”

And while the Democratic House may be embracing pot, the reality, Luke explains, is that the rest of the country is having second thoughts.

“We actually had a dozen states or more reject marijuana legalization this year alone, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut — all very progressive states with progressive governors who were totally committed to legalizing marijuana. But minority groups and family groups and other groups came out and said, ‘No thanks.’. So there’s a movement now in this country to push against this — and a lot of that is being stemmed by a number of major public health concerns we’re discovering. Maybe not many people know this, but just three weeks ago, the United States surgeon general, Dr. Jerome Adams, just released the first surgeon general’s advisory on marijuana in 40 years.”

There are probably some conservatives out there who’ve fallen for the libertarian lie that the government can do a better job regulating marijuana and protecting people if it’s legal. But the research is clear: all that’s happening in the states where pot is allowed are more arrests, more hospital visits, more suicides, more crime, more DUIs, more work-related problems — more Jennifers.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) isn’t going to be in a hurry to pass anything on the House Democrats’ radical agenda. But the pressure is building on him, even from members in his own party, to chase these dead-end solutions. Contact your senators and ask them to hold the line on the SAFE Banking Act.


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


Also in the September 30 Washington Update:

Freedom Denied: Communist China’s Red Legacy

No-Fly for Life: Illinois Rep. Proposes Radical Travel Ban

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

Do Democrat Loyalists Really Know their Party?

Do you find yourself scratching your head wondering why your intelligent, moral, and Christian relatives and friends continue to support the Democratic party despite its amoral, anti-Christian and anti-American agenda? A part of the problem is for decades Republicans and Conservatives have brought an olive branch to a gun fight, allowing progressives free reign to demonize Republicans and Conservatives in the minds of many Americans. Trump is a rare Republican who understands the viciousness of our enemies-within and is fighting back appropriately.

No matter how hard I try to educate relatives and friends about the benefits of conservatism and voting Republican, some persist in viewing me as an Uncle Tom black man betraying his people. Stenciled on their brains is the lie that Conservatives and Republicans are selfish, rich and racist white men who abuse and exploit everyone. Thank God for the #WalkAway Campaign, the Jexit Movement and Blexit Movement which are youths, white and black, who have finally seen the light and are exiting the Democratic party with its decades of lies and broken promises.

Still, there are Democrat walking brain-dead zombies who reject the truth that their party has been hijacked by hate-filled anti-Christian and anti-American progressives. The Bible speaks of unfortunate souls who prefer to embrace a lie rather than the truth. We must pray for them.

However, there are Democrat loyalists who simply do not realize what their “working man’s” party has become. For example: A lifelong Democrat senior relative is excited about voting for Joe Biden for president.

This relative has no idea that Biden and his fellow Democrat presidential contenders demonically seek to legalize murdering babies after the child is born. In their perverted definition of women rights, Democrats say a woman has the right to murder her healthy born baby. I pray for the right time to tell my senior relative the truth about Biden and her beloved Democratic party.

Progressives are extremely good at keeping their extreme assaults on our culture off evening news broadcasts and front page of the New York Times. Consequently, few Democrat voters know their party supports LGBTQ ideology being taught is schools beginning in pre-k. The LGBTQ curriculum in public schools mandates that students read, “I Am Jazz” about a boy whose insane parents began his sex change at 3 years old. The Pope and pediatricians say teaching transgender ideology is child abuse. Hellbent on making the perverted sexual behavior of less than 3% of the population mainstream, Democrats seek to make it illegal to counsel anyone troubled by their same sex attraction.

I doubt that average Joe, Democrat voter, knows his presidential candidates welcome the invasion of illegals while promising them free healthcare, along with numerous other benefits unavailable to Joe and his fellow American citizens. Do loyal Democrat voters know Democrat sanctuary cities protect illegals who rape and murder Americans?

San Francisco is a Democrat controlled sanctuary city. A Democrat relative’s eyes almost popped out of her head as I told her about the poop maps distributed in San Francisco to help tourists avoid the piles of human excrement left by vagrants defecating on the streets. She knew nothing about the swiftly expanding massive tent cities, rat infestation and resurgence of old diseases due to filth. She had no idea that rather than reversing their policies which are destroying the once beautiful city by the bay, Democrats are tripling down on their insane policies.

As I stated, progressives are masters at hiding their war on all thing wholesome and good. I chatted with a Christian pastor at his church’s picnic. He never heard of the Equality Act which Democrats have already successfully passed in the house.

The pastor said in response to SCOTUS redefining marriage, his church wrote in their by-laws that they will not perform homosexual weddings nor rent their facilities for homosexual weddings. I explained to the pastor that the deceptively titled, Equality Act, will force his church to abandon their biblical convictions; making it illegal not to surrender to every demand of LBGTQ anti-Christian terrorists. A member said about 40% of that church’s congregation is Democrat. I doubt those Democrats are aware of their party’s war on their religious liberty.

How many blue collar Democrat voters know their party’s Green New Deal will kill jobs and destroy Trump’s booming economy? Within the next 12 years, their insane Green New Deal includes eliminating 99% of cars; eliminating air travel; banning affordable energy; banning meat; gutting and rebuilding every building in America and numerous other outrageous environmental wacko demands.

A gentleman probably in his 90s was in front of me in the checkout line at the dollar store. The pleasant gentleman struck up a conversation with me about the weather. He said the unusual humidity is the result of us not taking care of the environment. He said the Arctic icebergs are melting.

I thought, “Why bother trying to educate him. He is probably an old guy, stuck in his ways.” And yet, I felt guilty for not sharing the truth with the misinformed senior.

As we exited the store, I succinctly said, “Sir, we cannot control the weather. Everything you are hearing in the news about us destroying the environment is a political attempt for government to take more control of our lives.” To my surprise, he replied, “I think you’re right.”

This is what we all must do folks. We must begin speaking up rather than assuming we have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans. My wife said because she does not possess expert knowledge of every issue, she is reluctant to speak-out when someone parrots Democrat and fake news media lies. I encouraged her to confidently share what she does know about an issue. Remember, God uses ordinary people. Your little becomes much when you place it in the Master’s Hand. Spread truth and trust God to reap positive results.

President Was Right: ‘Devil’s Highway’ from Massachusetts to NH Brought Drugs to Granite State

This week the feds busted 38 individuals they say are responsible for addiction and death in New Hampshire.

The operation dubbed “Devil’s Highway” once again brought attention to Trump’s words about how Lawrence, Mass. is a hub for the distribution of dangerous opioids and other drugs throughout New England.

And, it sure looks like ‘new Americans’ are responsible….

MSN News:

President Trump’s Lawrence comments back in spotlight after massive drug bust

“For anyone who said Lawrence is not a hub for distribution, how you looking now?” said N.H. state Rep. Fred Doucette, who was a state co-chair for Trump’s 2016 campaign.

“This definitely solidifies some statements that people took offense to,” Doucette added.

“Incidents like this are proof positive of the fact that Lawrence is a hub.”

The 10-week enforcement operation in the Merrimack Valley targeted drug distribution in Lawrence, and trafficking between Lawrence and destinations in New Hampshire.

These U.S. attorney prosecutions should resonate with New Hampshire voters, said Republican activist Fran Wendelboe.

For details on the bust see Monday’s US Justice Department press release:

Merrimack Valley Operation Results in Arrest of 38 Individuals

See the names of those arrested (no mention of their immigration status).

During the operation, the following defendants were arrested on federal charges:

  1. Jason Medlen, 32, of Methuen, charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl;
  2. Louis Delvecchio, 51, of Methuen, charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl;
  3. Santos Obispo Guerrera Lara, 35, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  4. Douglas “Sunny” Grasso, 34, of Lawrence, charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl;
  5. Brian Brae, 35, of Lawrence, charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl;
  6. Enel Alfredo Mendez-Aquino, 29, of Lawrence, charged with distribution of fentanyl and cocaine;
  7. Jorge Alexander Andujar Romero, 29, of Lawrence, charged with distribution of and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  8. Edward Jesis Mar Carmona Ortiz, 42, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  9. Steven de Jesus de Leon Trinidad, 22, of Lawrence, charged with distribution and possession with intent to distribute a heroine/fentanyl mix;
  10. Luis Felix Franco Herrera, 21, of Lawrence, charged with distribution of and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  11. Jose Rodriquez-Walker, 32, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  12. Johanny Mejia-Nunez, 43, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl;
  13. Ronyel Pena, 18, of Lawrence, charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  14. Joe Martinez, 24, of Lawrence, charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  15. Ysrael Nunez, 37, of Lawrence, charged with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl; distribution of and possession with intent to distribute fentanyl; distribution of and possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl; and aiding and abetting;
  16. William Cabrera, 30, of Lawrence, charged with distribution of and possession with intent to distribute heroin; and possession with intent to distribute heroin and oxycodone;
  17. Oscar Guadalupe Martinez, 37, of North Andover, charged with conspiracy with intent to distribute and distribution of 400 grams or more of fentanyl and 1 kilogram or more of heroin;
  18. Stiven Torres Martinez, 21, of North Andover, charged with conspiracy with intent to distribute and distribution of 400 grams or more of fentanyl and 1 kilogram or more of heroin;
  19. Jason Jimenez, 24, of Bronx, New York, charged with possession with intent to distribute over 40 grams of fentanyl;
  20. Milton Elias Lara, 42, of Lawrence, charged with distribution of and possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl;
  21. Alexsander Padro, 28, of Methuen, charged with distribution of 40 grams or more of fentanyl;
  22. John Mena, 24, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute and distribution of 10 grams or more of acryl fentanyl, a controlled substance analogue;
  23. Yunior Darismir Prandys Torres, 22, of Lawrence, charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute a controlled substance, to wit, fentanyl;
  24. Juan Perez Diaz, 22, of Lawrence, charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute a controlled substance, to wit, fentanyl;
  25. Jose Ventura, 37, of Lawrence, charged with distribution of and possession with intent to distribute 10 grams or more of fentanyl;
  26. Leisy Baez-Zapata, 21, of Lawrence, charged with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl; distribution of and possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl; and aiding and abetting;
  27. Erick Alberto Paulino Amador, 28, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute and distribution of fentanyl;
  28. Bernardito Carvajal, 28, of Haverhill, charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  29. Alfredo Rivera, 31, of Haverhill, charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  30. Julio Esthil-Cifre, 30, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  31. Edgar Castro, 45, of Revere, charged with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine;
  32. Julio Ortiz-Chaparro, 47, of Boston, charged with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine;
  33. Crishanty Aybar Arias, 22, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  34. Cesar Lara Castillo, 36, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute a Schedule I controlled substance; false representation of social security number, and aggravated identity theft;
  35. Santiago Rubel Guerrero Tejeda, 22, of Bani, Dominican Republic, charged with possession with intent to distribute and distribution of fentanyl;
  36. Jesus Maria Aybar Franco, 34, of Lawrence, charged with distribution and  possession with intent to distribute fentanyl;
  37. Marino Amador Baez, 34, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl; and
  38. Willin Arias-Castillo, 35, of Lawrence, charged with possession with intent to distribute and distribution of fentanyl.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Biden Spells Extremism L-G-B-T

They may only be four percent of our country — but the LGBT community is getting 100 percent of the Left’s attention. Over the weekend, 10 of the Democrats vying for President Trump’s job tried to persuade Americans that the most pressing issue facing our country is the pursuit of taxpayer-funded gender surgery. If pandering were an Olympic sport, Joe Biden could have medaled. Instead, he settled — like they all did — for new records in extremism.

GLAAD CEO Sarah Ellis would have you believe that “LGBTQ issues have been… left out of the 2020 presidential primary conversation.” That’s interesting, since most Americans probably feel like it’s all the Democrats ever talk about. From Biden calling the Equality Act his “number one priority” to Julian Castro saying even transgender “women” need abortion, sexual politics have dominated this political cycle in a way most people can’t believe. Surely there are more pressing issues facing our nation than putting a Drag Queen Story Hour in every library — but you wouldn’t know it by the talking points of the Democratic field.

Most of Saturday’s event was spent fighting for the most radical social space in U.S. history — led by “moderate” Joe Biden, whose best argument for president is that he’ll turn our prisons into a gender-neutral free-for-all. “In prison,” he argued, “the determination should be that your sexual identity is defined by what you say it is [and] not what the prison says it is.” That, ironically, was tame compared to his other kooky suggestions. The former vice president’s platform for America also includes outlawing talk therapy, forcing religious hospitals to perform gender mutilations, and putting taxpayers on the hook for transgender plastic surgery.

The soundbites were almost impossible to believe. “We should outlaw, nationally, conversion therapy,” Biden argued. “There should be a law against it, period.” Followed by: “Obamacare… does cover [gender reassignment] surgery…Trump by executive order struck all of that out of the Affordable Care Act. I would reinstate it all. Every LGBT person… should be able to have full health care without limits.” Then, as if that weren’t enough, the former second-in-command went on to say that the government should punish hospitals who don’t want to perform transgender surgery. “It is simply against the law when I’m president.”

Of course, this grab bag of LGBT radicalism is all designed for one thing: winning the nomination. There’s just one problem — the same that one Hillary Clinton ran into three years ago: You can’t win the White House with the same extremism that charms the core of today’s Democratic party. For now, these promises may open up the Left’s wallet, but they never pay off come Election Day.

And it’s no wonder. Even sympathetic voters would agree that there are far bigger issues facing America than gender-neutral pronouns. With all of the tension on the world stage, with immigration reaching its boiling point, and people looking to Washington to keep the economic boom going, the front-runner of the Democratic party says putting men in girls’ bathrooms is the most important thing of all? And yet, the DNC is so tone deaf that its candidates aren’t participating in one — but two — LGBT forums this fall.

Interestingly, if you ask Americans what their biggest concerns are heading into next year’s election, the LGBT agenda doesn’t even make the list! In April, when Fox News ran the numbers, immigration (21 percent) and the economy (10 percent) were the only two that even had double-digit mentions. Gallup’s team got the same response in the lead-up to the midterms. When they asked voters, Biden’s number-one priority wasn’t even on the map. Even climate change, which is usually dead last on Americans’ minds, had more fans.

Brad Polumbo, one of the people who suffered through this three-hour spectacle, probably felt like a lot of viewers when he wrote, “I expected the debate would be full of left-wing virtue signaling and pandering. But I never quite expected this many Democratic candidates to say openly crazy things — and be proud of it.”

Welcome to 2020.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

A Countries Club for Life

Eric Metaxas Joins Conservative Who’s Who at 14th VVS

RELATED VIDEO: Joe Biden Transgender Criminals In Prison Should Be Housed With Gender They Identify As. – Infinite Jest

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

Sting Sex Trafficking at the Source . . . Its Buyers

Authorities have arrested more than 100 people in a massive child sex trafficking sting in central Ohio. Yes, you heard correctly: 100 people, in the state of Ohio, for child sex trafficking. The Homeland Security special agent in charge of the investigation warned, “We are just scratching the surface… it’s that way across the country.”

Human trafficking, particularly for sex, is a global enterprise — and the United States is, unfortunately, the leader in driving demand. Because human trafficking is no small business, this Ohio sting operation involved more than 30 law enforcement agencies.

As reported by The Columbus Dispatch, “[a] report commissioned for the city of Columbus last year found that the National Human Trafficking Resource Center in 2015 received 1,066 trafficking calls from Ohio, the fourth-highest volume in the country. Central Ohio rescue groups have served more than 700 human-trafficking victims since 2008; girls between the ages of 12 and 18 are at the highest risk.”

The child sex-trafficking ring outed by this particular sting was not operated on the streets or in dark alleys as one might expect but on the internet. The perpetrators defied stereotypes as well. Among the arrested suspects were an emergency room doctor and a church youth director! Traffickers and predators can be anyone.

In his remarks relating to the sting, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) acknowledged the “real dangers on the internet for children.” He continued, “[c]riminals involved in trafficking other human beings prey upon those individuals that are already at risk, subjecting them to prostitution and addiction. . .. Predators who seek to harm our children and grandchildren are not hiding in the bushes, they’re lurking on the internet.”

In this sting operation, law enforcement officers posed as the underage boys and girls with whom the predators initiated online chats. But the sting was not focused merely on “internet predators, but human traffickers and the men who feed the sex trade with their dollars.”

In a bipartisan effort to target the buyers of sex, Congresswoman Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) and Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) recently introduced the Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act, which would amend the minimum standards of combating sex trafficking (contained in the current Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) to include language prohibiting the purchase of sex.

Without buyers, you lower the demand for sex trafficking. Buying human beings should be unacceptable behavior, and one way to make it unacceptable is by penalizing said behavior. Passing the Sex Trafficking Demand Reduction Act would paint a clear line between what is ethically right and what is wrong and would be a great step in the right direction for our culture. You can read more about the bill here.

Of the 104 arrested, there were 24 male suspects (ranging in age from 20 to 59) accused of attempting unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and importuning, 43 women accused of selling sex, 36 men accused of trying to buy sex, and one man accused of promoting prostitution.

Thanks to years of human trafficking advocacy, our society knows so much more about the realities of the business of sexual exploitation than we once did. Thankfully, the 43 women arrested for selling sex are now in what Ohio calls CATCH Court (Changing Actions To Change Habits), a two-year treatment-oriented program and specialty docket for women in the system who are victims of human trafficking. No matter what kind of spin liberal activists may use, “pimp” and “prostitute” are erroneous and outdated terminology for what we now know as the business of sex trafficking. Arresting the victims is not the perfect system, but at least for now, it has proved to be the most effective means of getting the trafficked away from their traffickers and into safety. (Oftentimes victims do not see themselves as victims due to the manipulative grooming of the trafficker).

One thing is certain: we need to arrest more of the buyers of sex. The law needs to continue driving a long, hard stake into the ground with a sign that reads: our women, boys, and girls are not for sale.

COLUMN BY

Patrina Mosley

Patrina Mosley serves as the Director of Life, Culture and Women’s Advocacy at the Family Research Council. Her writings and research examine the sanctity of life and women’s dignity issues in policy and culture.

Specifically, Patrina specializes in advocating for women in matters of abortion, sex trafficking, and pornography. From her policy analysis to cultural commentary, her goal is to motivate others to action from a biblical worldview.

Her commentary has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Examiner, The Hill, Townhall, The Federalist, The Daily Signal, The Christian Post and more. She has also testified in state legislatures on fetal pain in abortion, and the influence pornography has to normalize violence against women as well as its effect in increasing the demand for sex trafficking.

Before her current role, Patrina served as Family Research Council Action’s Assistant Director where she walked alongside state and federal campaigns for endorsement. Combining her passion for elections and educating voters, she oversaw numerous grassroots projects to lead endorsed candidates of faith, family, and freedom to victory.

Before joining FRC, Patrina directed Concerned Women for America’s collegiate initiative, Young Women for America. In training the next generation of women to be leaders in public policy, she grew YWA’s campus reach across the country while at the same time pioneering biblically based educational curriculum on policy issues such as abortion, family and marriage, support for Israel, and sexual exploitation.

Patrina is a graduate of Liberty University with a Bachelor of Science in Religion with a specialization in Biblical Studies and a Masters in Public Policy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UNCompromising: Trump Steals the Show with Religious Freedom

The Remains of an Abortionist’s Day

Scalise Brings Born-Alive Push to VVS

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

Andrew Who?

It’s no secret that the legacy media in America is struggling to maintain a certain level of trust with the general public. Polls show that Americans often feel that there is a great deal of bias permeating the nation’s newsrooms, with one survey even showing there is less confidence in the press than there is in Congress or the Executive Branch.

Considering most people form their opinions about Congress and the White House based on reports from the media, and since government officials from across the political spectrum regularly question media reports, it’s no wonder that these three institutions reside in the basement of rankings based on public trust.

But politicians are expected to exhibit bias: that’s why we have different political parties, as they tend to embrace different ideological positions. To promote your platform, it is only natural to have bias.

The media, on the other hand, is supposed to be neutral; at least when it comes to simply reporting the news. Many don’t feel that is the case, with most (if not all) in the pro-Second Amendment community convinced that media outlets tend to present a distinct anti-gun bias.

Which brings us to this article’s titular question, “Andrew Who?”

Andrew Pollack is a man who likely warrants media attention. But the stridently liberal arm of legacy media appears to not be aware of the man, or is going out of its way to keep the general public from hearing his story.

Now, those who read our alerts regularly are likely aware of Mr. Pollack. Sadly, his daughter Meadow was one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Even those who don’t read our material, and don’t support the Second Amendment, may have heard of him last year, when the media also seemed to know him. Numerous stories on the aftermath of that horrendous murder-spree[CB1] [KK2]  by a deranged former student of the school ran in the weeks and months following.

Andrew Pollack was one of the grieving parents, along with several students, invited to the White House for a listening session, where President Trump heard from some of those most directly impacted by the tragedy. Media coverage spoke of Mr. Pollack’s passionate demands that something be done.

“How many schools, how many children have to get shot? It stops here with this administration and me. I’m not going to sleep until it is fixed. And Mr. President, we’ll fix it. Because I’m going to fix it. I’m not going to rest,” Mr. Pollack stated.

Since that meeting at the White House, though, the legacy media seems to have forgotten who Andrew Pollack is.

Or is he being avoided?

Ever since Parkland, there has been a tremendous amount of coverage of some of the people impacted by the shooting. But those receiving the vast majority of the coverage have been promoting gun control as their response, which tends to coincide with what most in the media promote. Andrew Pollack, on the other hand, does not support that response.

In fact, Meadow’s dad decided to dig much deeper than simply looking at the type of firearm the gunman used, or how he obtained it, which has long been the standard reaction to these types of rare, but horrific events.

Banning guns, or increasing regulations on law-abiding gun owners, has always been the “easy” response to violent crime involving firearms. This approach doesn’t require looking into far more complicated matters, such as what drives someone to want to kill others, what are the warning signs of such intent, and what systems can be put into place to prevent someone from actually following through with their murderous intentions.

Andrew Pollack wasn’t looking for the “easy” response; he was looking for an effective response. This led to a partnership with Max Eden, a senior fellow in education policy at the Manhattan Institute. The two met when Mr. Eden visited Parkland to do his own investigation for an article. They became friends, and decided to collaborate on a book, “Why Meadow Died: The People and the Policies that Created the Parkland Shooter and Endanger America’s Students,” which was released this month.

While this isn’t intended as a review of the book, we will say that it is a well-researched, thorough treatise on Parkland. Most who have followed this tragedy are aware that there appeared to be not just warning signs about the shooter’s potential for committing the heinous act he committed, but missed opportunities to take action that would have prevented him from doing what he did.

That’s putting it mildly.

The investigation by Mr. Pollack and Mr. Eden revealed innumerable missed warning signs and opportunities. On second thought, it is likely more accurate to say the warning signs and opportunities were “ignored,” rather than “missed.” It is truly shocking how little was done to address such an obvious growing threat, and the book strongly supports Mr. Pollack’s assertion, “Parkland was the most avoidable mass shooting in American history.”

A book addressing a horrific tragedy that gripped the nation, written by a grieving father searching for answers, would seem to be newsworthy. But for some reason, most of the media are ignoring it. A cynic might posit that this is because the book doesn’t advocate banning guns and ratcheting up restriction on law-abiding gun owners, which is what the media likes to promote. But maybe they just aren’t aware of the book.

Lack of awareness, however, doesn’t seem to be the issue.

In fact, the authors told us that CNN had initially booked Mr. Pollack for an appearance, but cancelled the appearance, claiming “timing conflicts.” Again, a cynic might think someone wanted to do a segment on a book by a father who lost his daughter in Parkland, but once they realized the book was contrary to CNN’s usual anti-gun narrative, the powers-that-be instructed the segment be cancelled. Perhaps they will rebook him in the future, just to prove the cynics wrong.

Of course, CNN isn’t the only news outlet. On cable, MSNBC is also ignoring Mr. Pollack, as are print media giants, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Fortunately, some are paying attention. Fox News has had Andrew Pollack on its programs a number of times, including a segment discussing the fact that others in the media seem to be ignoring him. Considering the fact that Fox News has long dominated the ratings when it comes to cable news, if only one outlet is going to cover your book, that’s the one you want.

We hope that the lack of coverage is only temporary, and other outlets start booking Mr. Pollack. He and his co-author have done compelling research that should not be ignored. This grieving father should be heard, even if his message might run contrary to a particular outlet’s political agenda. News, after all, is still news, and should be covered by news outlets. That’s how an open and free media should work.

At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wisconsin: Gov. Evers Calls for Firearm Confiscation & Criminalizing Private Transfers

U.S. Supreme Court Schedules NRA-Supported Second Amendment Case for Argument

Beto’s Confiscation Plan Shows Why Gun Owners Must Reject Appeasement

The Hopkins Hypocrite: Michael Bloomberg Touts Free Speech While Another Bloomberg Entity Degrades It

EDITORS NOTE: The NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.