Will Starbucks Values Hit the Campaign Trail in 2020?

Howard Schultz, the former CEO of Starbucks, tweeted his interest in running for president of the United States… as an independent.

Now, with an outspoken CEO who regularly leveraged his position to push an agenda, Starbucks could hardly be considered a centrist entity under Schultz’s leadership—that would essentially require neutrality on the issues, or at least some semblance of playing both sides. Looking at Starbucks’ long receipt of liberal activism over the years, you can understand why we view this new-found moderation with healthy skepticism.

After his voluntary departure in 2000, Schultz returned in 2008 after the company reported serious financial troubles. The return also marked a jumpstart in the activism that has earned Starbucks a 2ndVote score of 1 (Liberal).

During his second tenure, Schultz told Christian shareholders to take a hike if they didn’t agree with the company’s support for same-sex marriage. Later that year, Starbucks banned all customers from legally carrying firearms in their stores.

Additionally, in what is surely a carry-over from Schultz’s time as CEO, the new Starbucks chief has been forced to defend his company’s financial support for abortion giant Planned Parenthood. 

Click here to see more on Starbucks’ support for the Paris Climate Accords, sanctuary cities, and more!

Obviously, conservatives are unlikely to cast their first vote for Schultz in 2020. What should concern the new leadership at Starbucks is the fact that they won’t cast their 2ndVote buying their coffee until the stain of activism is erased from the kitchens.

Hold Starbucks accountable by buying your coffee from these better alternatives.Contact Starbucks!

Reach Out to Starbucks on Facebook!

Help us continue highlighting how corporations support the left’s agenda by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

Corporate Dollars Fuel Planned Parenthood’s Push to Infanticide

Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse slammed Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s defense of a legislation to expand late-term abortion earlier this week:

The comments the governor of Virginia made were about fourth-term abortions. That’s not abortion, that’s infanticide.

Indeed, Northam’s description of an infant having his or her fate determined by a discussion between a doctor and patient after delivery was quite horrific:

If a mother is in labor . . . the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.

Northam’s comments were made in the wake of the New York’s legislative rollback of limitations on late-term abortion and come in the midst of Planned Parenthood’s push to enshrine abortion to the moment of birth. However, Northam may have overplayed the abortion lobby’s hand and exposed Planned Parenthood’s true intentions as public outcry helped defeat Virginia’s controversial bill.

Now, the battle to protect the lives of fully formed, full-term babies is not done, and FoxNews reports Planned Parenthood Action Fund expects to push for similar measures in over half the states in the country. That is why it is imperative we demand Planned Parenthood’s corporate sponsors cease funding the abortionists infanticide agenda.

Our research has found the following companies and organizations are direct supporters of Planned Parenthood:

Adobe
Aetna
Allstate
American Express
Amgen
AutoZone
Avon
Bank of America
Bath & Body Works
Ben & Jerry’s
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Boeing
BP
Charles Schwab
Clorox
Craigslist
Converse
Deutsche Bank
Diageo
Dockers

Energizer
Expedia
ExxonMobil
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Frito Lay
General Electric
Groupon
Intuit
Jiffy Lube
JPMorgan Chase
Johnson & Johnson
Kaiser Permanente
Kraft Heinz
Levi Strauss
Liberty Mutual
March of Dimes
Microsoft
Mondelez International
Monsanto

Morgan Stanley
Nike
Oracle
Patagonia
PayPal
PepsiCo
Pfizer
Progressive Insurance
Prudential
Qualcomm
Starbucks
Shell
Susan G. Komen
Unilever
United Airlines
United Way
US Bank
Verizon
Wells Fargo

Use the links above to see our research and the contact buttons provided to reach out to these corporations.

Planned Parenthood’s disgusting celebration of New York’s Reproductive Health Act clearly illustrates the abortion giant’s agenda—the unrestricted ability to kill fully formed babies. Corporations that support this agenda need to hear from you that they are funding the deaths of their own customers. They also need to know why they will not be doing so with your dollars as you take your business to companies that do not fuel Planned Parenthood’s industry of death.

Help us continue highlighting how corporations support the left’s agenda by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Kamala Harris Running on Anything Other Than Abortion?

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo s by Ryan Graybill on Unsplash.

Cleveland Clinic Won’t Recommend Medical Marijuana to Patients

Why the Cleveland Clinic won’t recommend medical marijuana for patients 

Doctors at Ohio’s Cleveland Clinic will not recommend marijuana for medical use, according to Paul Terpeluk, DO, medical director of the clinic’s employee health services. Writing in the Kent (OH) Record-Courier, Dr. Terpeluk explains why.
 
“In the world of healthcare, a medication is a drug that has endured extensive clinical trials, public hearings and approval by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration,” he says. “Medications are tested for safety and efficacy. They are closely regulated, from production to distribution. They are accurately dosed, down to the milligram. 
 
“Medical marijuana is none of those things,” he points out. 
 
He says governments, regulators, medical researchers, and pharmaceutical companies should focus on isolating marijuana components to produce dose-specific medication and submit it to testing and regulatory processes.
 
He notes that in 2017, the National Institutes of Health supported 330 projects totaling almost $140 million on cannabinoid research. Marijuana contains more than 500 chemicals. Slightly more than 100 of those, called cannabinoids, are unique to the cannabis plant. Thus far, pharmaceutical companies have developed four cannabinoid medications and FDA has approved them:Marinol (dronabinol) is man-made THC in pill form,Syndros (dronabinol) is man-made THC in liquid form,Cesamet (nabilone) is a man-made product similar to THC in pill form, andEpidiolex (cannabidiol) is a purified extract of marijuana in oil form. “As a healthcare provider our goal is to help patients, to treat their conditions, to improve their quality of life, and to ease their suffering – within the bounds of scientific evidence,” Dr. Terpeluk concludes.
 
Read Cleveland Clinic statement here.
 
Effect of Marijuana Smoking on Pulmonary Disease in HIV-Infected and Uninfected Men 

Published online prior to the publication of the December-January issue of EClinicalMedicine, this longitudinal study involved 1352 HIV-seropositive and 1352 HIV-seronegative men who have sex with men.
 
Eligible participants with self-reported marijuana and tobacco smoking had biannual study visits between 1996 and 2014. Researchers obtained pulmonary diagnoses from self-reports and medical records.
 
This study finds that “Among HIV-infected participants, recent marijuana smoking was associated with increased risk of infectious pulmonary diagnoses and chronic bronchitis independent of tobacco smoking and other risk factors for lung disease; . . . these risks were additive in participants smoking both substances. There was no association between marijuana smoking and pulmonary diagnoses in HIV-uninfected participants.”
 
Read full text of this NIH-funded study here.
 
Cannabis anonymous: Steamboat Springs therapist sees rise in marijuana addiction 

A Steamboat Springs, Colorado, licensed counselor and certified addictions therapist, Gary Guerney, has been treating substance abuse problems in patients for more than 20 years. In the last year, he has been shocked by the number of people who are coming to him for help with their addiction to marijuana, a drug most thought was not addictive.
 
“In all my years, I’ve never seen this,” he says.
 
Initially, he favored legalizing marijuana for medical use, but now he’s not so sure. He worries about the drug’s impact on mental health and addiction.
 
Marijuana use has more than doubled in the past decade.
 
Read Steamboat Pilot & Today story here.
 
Colorado: Owners of Sweet Leaf dispensary chain sentenced to a year in prison for illegal marijuana distribution 

A landmark case in the land of legal marijuana is getting widespread attention across the nation. Yes, pot is legal in Colorado, but no one can violate the Colorado Organized Crime Law by illegally selling and distributing marijuana even if they own licensed dispensaries.
 
The three owners of the Sweet Leaf dispensary chain pleaded guilty to violating this law. They were sentenced to one year in prison, to be followed by one year of parole, and one year of probation.
 
The owners admitted they knew that some customers were “looping,” a practice where someone buys the maximum amount of marijuana allowed and returns to the dispensary to buy the maximum amount again and again the same day. The maximum amount in Colorado is one ounce.
 
A Denver prosecutor told the judge that a year-long investigation by Denver police and an equally long investigation by a Denver grand jury resulted in the charges. The investigations produced evidence of loopers purchasing marijuana from Sweet Leaf dispensaries 30 to 40 times a day, leading to almost 2.5 tons of illegal marijuana going into the black market.
 
Sweet Leaf’s parent companies, Dynamic Growth Partner LLC and AJS Holdings LLC, also pleaded guilty and were fined $125,000 each.
 
Read the Denver Post story here.

VIDEO: Man With Down Syndrome Says He Wants to Make Abortion ‘Unthinkable’

Former Special Olympian Frank Stephens spoke out about abortion on “Fox & Friends” Friday, after his video on the sanctity of life went viral on actor Ashton Kutcher’s Facebook page.

“I’d like to thank my friend Ashton Kutcher for bringing back my testimony,” he said. “It’s like the walking dead because it just won’t stay down.”

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is DCNF-Logo-300x100-26.png

Stephens said he doesn’t want to make abortion illegal, but instead wants to make it “unthinkable.”

“About abortion, I don’t want to make it illegal,” he said. “I want to make it unthinkable. Politicians change laws. I want to change people’s hearts. I want to change people’s hearts by changing people’s minds and hearts together.”

Co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked Stephens why his life is worth living and he said he’s gotten to travel all across the world and enjoys the strong love of his family and friends.

“My life is worth living because it is fantastic,” he replied. “I’ve gotten to travel all over the world. I get to workshop a play in New York. I’m going to be in two documentaries, which will be on next month. And I have a lovely girlfriend, friends, and a wonderful family.”

COLUMN BY

Nick Givas

Nick Givas is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @NGivasDC.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Gov. Ralph Northam: ‘I Don’t Have Any Regrets’ About Infanticide Comments

California Restaurateur Compares MAGA Hats to White Hoods

7 Topics Trump Should Address in the State of the Union

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column with images is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. Photo: Screenshot from “Fox & Friends.”

World-Wide Threat Assessment Makes Powerful Case For Border Security

Timing is everything. Congress is currently in the midst of debating the construction of a “border wall” or “border barrier” to protect the dangerous U.S./Mexican border as the clock ticks down to another possible partial shutdown of our government if an agreement cannot be reached.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, January 29, 2019 the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a hearing on Worldwide Threats that was predicated on a just-released paper, “World-Wide Threat Assessment,” that was issued by Daniel Coats, the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community.

As we will see, elements of that report addressed issues that have a clear nexus to border security and immigration law enforcement.

However, the leaders of the Democratic Party have thus far made it clear that they will oppose any and all efforts to construct a barrier to block the uninspected entry of aliens and cargo into the United States while simultaneously claiming that they don’t oppose border security — even as some Democrats call for disbanding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

While the Democratic Party leaders claim that a wall or barrier on the southern border is a waste of money and find all sorts of other absurd excuses to oppose it, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi outrageously and infamously claiming that any such structure would be “immoral,” the leaders of the U.S. Border Patrol as well as the leaders of the Border Patrol Council, the union that represents our valiant Border Patrol agents, have publicly and repeatedly stated that a wall or barrier is essential to help them to secure our nation’s borders.

Clearly the Democrats have no interest in actually securing our borders or in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Now we come to that hearing conducted by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the report that served as the predication for that hearing.

Inasmuch as the report contains material furnished by all of the elements of the U.S. Intelligence Community, the leaders of these agencies were witnesses at the hearing.

This is the Witness List:

Director Daniel Coats
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
ODNI

Director Christopher Wray
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FBI

Director Gina Haspel
Central Intelligence Agency
CIA

Director General Robert Ashley
Defense Intelligence Agency
DIA

Director General Paul Nakasone
National Security Agency
NSA

Director Robert Cardillo
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
NGA

Several areas of concern about national security vulnerabilities addressed in the report have a clear and unmistakable nexus to immigration, border security and related issues.

Page 4 of the report included this paragraph:

Migration is likely to continue to fuel social and interstate tensions globally, while drugs and transnational organized crime take a toll on US public health and safety. Political turbulence is rising in many regions as governance erodes and states confront growing public health and environmental threats.

Page 10 included the following excerpt:

TERRORISM

Sunni Violent Extremists

Global jihadists in dozens of groups and countries threaten local and regional US interests, despite having experienced some significant setbacks in recent years, and some of these groups will remain intent on striking the US homeland. Prominent jihadist ideologues and media platforms continue to call for and justify efforts to attack the US homeland.

Page 18 of the report focuses on Transnational Criminal Organizations and provided vital information about drug trafficking and human trafficking.

Here is an excerpt of the material provided in this chapter of the report:

TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

Global transnational criminal organizations and networks will threaten US interests and allies by trafficking drugs, exerting malign influence in weak states, threatening critical infrastructure, orchestrating human trafficking, and undermining legitimate economic activity.

Drug Trafficking

The foreign drug threat will pose continued risks to US public health and safety and will present a range of threats to US national security interests in the coming year. Violent Mexican traffickers, such as members of the Sinaloa Cartel and New Generation Jalisco Cartel, remain key to the movement of illicit drugs to the United States, including heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cannabis from Mexico, as well as cocaine from Colombia. Chinese synthetic drug suppliers dominate US-bound movements of so- called designer drugs, including synthetic marijuana, and probably ship the majority of US fentanyl, when adjusted for purity.

Approximately 70,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, a record high and a 10-percent increase from 2016, although the rate of growth probably slowed in early 2018, based on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data.

Increased drug fatalities are largely a consequence of surging production of the synthetic opioid fentanyl; in 2017, more than 28,000 Americans died from synthetic opioids other than methadone, including illicitly manufactured fentanyl. The CDC reports synthetic opioid- related deaths rose 846 percent between 2010 and 2017, while DHS reports that US seizures of the drug increased 313 percent from 2016 to 2017.

Other Organized Crime Activities

Transnational criminal organizations and their affiliates are likely to expand their influence over some weak states, collaborate with US adversaries, and possibly threaten critical infrastructure.

Mexican criminals use bribery, intimidation, and violence to protect their drug trafficking, kidnapping-for-ransom, fuel-theft, gunrunning, extortion, and alien-smuggling enterprises.

Gangs based in Central America, such as MS-13, continue to direct some criminal activities beyond the region, including in the United States.

Transnational organized crime almost certainly will continue to inflict human suffering, deplete natural resources, degrade fragile ecosystems, drive migration, and drain income from the productive—and taxable—economy.

Human trafficking generates an estimated $150 billion annually for illicit actors and governments that engage in forced labor, according to the UN’s International Labor Organization.

This is not the first report or the first hearing to provide clear evidence that the porous U.S./Mexico border creates national security, public safety, and public health vulnerabilities for Americans.

I have written a number of articles about this issue; one of my recent articles took on the bogus claim that technology is better than a wall: “Why Trump’s Wall Is A Must” – And why a “virtual fence” will stop no one.

My May 11, 2018 article, “Congressional Hearing: Iranian Sleeper Cells Threaten U.S.,” was predicated on a hearing conducted by the House Homeland Security Committee.

A failure to stop the flow of illegal alien workers also undermines the U.S. economy, and costs American and lawful immigrant workers jobs and suppresses their wages. That fundamental fact was the basis for my commentary, “OPEN BORDERS FACILITATE AMERICA’S RACE TO THE BOTTOM” – “Cheap labor” is anything but cheap.

As I have noted ever so many times in my articles and in my Congressional testimony, simply securing the problematic border against the illegal (uninspected) entry of aliens won’t end the immigration crisis but would close one of the major holes in what I have come to refer to as the Immigration Colander. I have come to conceptualize the wall on the U.S./Mexican border as the equivalent of a wing on an airplane. Without a wing the airplane will not fly, but the wing by itself would go nowhere.

The immigration system has never had a meaningful program to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States. The need to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States is commonsense and was noted as an important issue by the 9/11 Commission. The dirty secret is that our political leaders understand just how important interior enforcement is but have intentionally never provided the resources to enforce those laws from within the interior. Consider that, in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11 President George W. Bush created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS ) and in so doing, broke the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into multiple components that then blended immigration with other agencies such as Customs.

However, while the leadership of neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been willing to take the necessary measures to finally save the immigration crisis through effective but fair law enforcement, unhinged members of the Democratic Party are now calling for dismantling ICE altogether. They are calling for immigration anarchy even as yet another hearing, involving the leaders of the U.S. intelligence community, are clear about the nexus between threats confronting America and border security and immigration law enforcement.

Meanwhile cities and states that are controlled by the Democrats have created “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” that shield illegal aliens from detection from ICE including criminals, members of transnational gangs and drug trafficking organizations. These jurisdictions also shield international fugitives and terrorists and, in shielding aliens who were smuggled into the United States, protect the human traffickers who smuggled them here.

If these politicians were really concerned about the plight of trafficked aliens, they could cooperate with ICE and make certain that ICE provides these aliens with visas that are available for aliens who cooperate with investigations into human trafficking and major crimes.

As we have seen with the trial of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, New York City — the American city with the largest, best-trained and -equipped police department in the United States — became the hub for the Mexican Sinaloa Drug Cartel that purportedly moved hundreds of tons of drugs including heroin, cocaine, meth, fentanyl, and marijuana into the U.S. across the Mexican border.

The only rational reason that NYC would have been selected as the hub, given the nature and reputation of the NYPD is the fact that NYC is a “Sanctuary City.” This was the focus of my article, “NEW YORK CITY: HUB FOR THE DEADLY DRUG TRADE” – “Sanctuary” policies attract foreign drug traffickers, fugitives and terrorists.

For far too long America has been bleeding red (blood) and green (money). Truly secure borders wold represent a giant step on the road to resolving the immigration crisis. Failure to secure the border costs innocent lives, each and every day.

RELATED ARTICLE: Unapologetic Baker Reintroduces ‘Build The Wall’ Cookies, Sells Them By The Dozen

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column with images is republished with permission.

Planned Puppyhood: What if you could abort a puppy at birth? [Video]

Stabbing an unborn baby to death is pure evil….if we did the same to puppies America would be enraged.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Pixabay.

The True Depravity of NY’s New Abortion Law

Many across the nation are rightfully outraged by the signing of the abortion expansion bill in New York. In response to fears that the Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade, the New York legislature, and Governor Andrew Cuomo, teamed up with the abortion industry to further tighten their grip on the Empire state following the 2018 midterms.

The bottom line is that the recently signed “Reproductive Health Act” goes way beyond a simple expansion of abortion in New York. As is typical with the Left, it takes some digging to bring the true intentions of this ghastly bill to light. It turns out that existing common-sense protections for women and children are stripped away in the name of late-term abortion expansion. This bill fulfills every wish that a late-term abortionist could have, and I have no doubt it will set the stage for the next Kermit Gosnell.

The new law expands the list of medical professionals able to commit abortions (including late-term abortions) from physicians to practically any healthcare professional authorized under New York’s education law (physician assistants, nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives, for example). This endangers women by allowing less experienced, less trained, and less qualified medical professionals to commit abortions.

The new law also removes requirements related to late-term abortions. Specifically, it repeals a requirement that abortions after 12 weeks be done in hospitals, thus increasing the likelihood that late-term abortions are done in less than safe facilities. The bill also removes a requirement that an additional physician be present in the event that an unborn child survives an abortion, as well as legal protections for born alive infants in the state’s social services law, civil rights law, and penal code. Eliminating these common-sense and popular protections for abortion survivors means that abortion survivors can be denied life-saving treatment in the moments following their live birth.

What is most disturbing is that the new law also eliminates the authority previously granted to coroners to examine the cause of death in criminal abortions. Earlier this year, Dr. Robert Rho plead guilty to criminal negligence after his actions resulted in the death of a 30-year-old woman who bled out following a botched abortion. Even more disturbing is the fact that this bill strips “personhood” out of the penal code, which means if a pregnant woman is assaulted and it results in the death of her unborn child, the perpetrator can no longer be charged with murder. By preventing coroners from investigating deaths as a result of botched abortions and assault, it is not only women’s health that is in danger, but it is a travesty of justice for the loved ones of patients who are killed by abortionists and of mothers whose unborn children are killed by an attacker.

The new year has brought a new level of desperation for the abortion lobby. They’re demonstrating a willingness to go beyond simply defending Roe v. Wade. Long gone are the days when their abortion mantra was “safe, legal, and rare.” It seems “abortion, on demand, without apology” is even giving way to a new mantra for big abortion. They now want license to strip away any and all protections meant to ensure women aren’t harmed in late-term abortions, as well as eliminate rights for abortion survivors and assault victims.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Asia Bibi: One Step Closer to Freedom

A Deal with China on Religious Freedom?

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with images is republished with permission.

Dental Wonders: 5 Dental Instruments that your Dentists Use

Taking care of your teeth sometimes needs more than your personal touch. To keep your tooth and gums sparkly clean and healthy, you’ll need the help of a Dentist. Some Dentists may or may not be doctors, but these professionals are more than qualified to handle health issues regarding the status and health of your teeth.

Dentists earn their degree and have all the right to give recommendations and perform procedures on your teeth and gums. Not only that, dentists have specialized tools that are built exclusively for them. In fact, there are some tools that you might not think that dentists use on their routine operations. Here are some high-tech gadgets that dentists use to perform their tasks.

Dental Loupes

Ever notice why a lot of dentists wear glasses? Do dentists have eye problems? The answer to that is no. Dentists usually wear specialized eyewear called Dental Loupes during procedures. These loupes can magnify the smallest details inside your mouth.

Working on someone’s teeth can be a tedious process because it takes doctors a long time to finish a procedure. Dental loupes make the process easier by reducing the time and effort a dentist puts in to properly see the inside of your mouth. These loupes work by relying on light refracted through lenses.

Most dental loupes have foot switches that enable dentists to continually work on your teeth without having to stop and use their hands to zoom in or out. Some even have small lights attached to them to improve the visibility inside the patient’s mouth.

Dental Drills

Ever heard of that weird, creepy sound you hear when you visit the dentist? That sound probably comes from a dental drill. Dental drills are small hand-held drills which allow the dentist to prepare a tooth for procedures such as attaching crowns, dental extractions, and other dental procedures.

Fun Fact: These drills are 100% safe and designed for dental procedures. However, a lot of patients may find it comforting that the dental drill may soon be a thing of the past. Recently, dentists are considering the use of peptides that can do the work of a drill, minus the irritation and creepy sound.

Peptides are amino acids which can act as a regenerating substance for your tooth. Using peptides means that there’ll be no use for a drill in the future. Just let a dentist apply the peptide on your tooth and wait for it to help your body stimulate tooth formation.

Dental Suction

The mouth dries up when opened for an extended period. To prevent drying, it’s the body’s typical response to pump up saliva production. Undergoing a dental procedure requires a patient to open their mouth which is why dentists need a suction machine to drain the saliva inside the mouth.

Water Flosser

Another hand-held device used by a dentist, a water flosser shoots out a powerful jet of water that can push away sticky stuff that’s just clinging on your teeth. The pressure of the water is strong enough to blast away gunk while delicate enough not to damage your gums and other sensitive parts of your mouth.

Although most dentists use a water flosser, you can use a water flosser in your home when regular flossing is difficult or isn’t applicable. Water flossers such as Waterpik WP-660 Aquarius are good tools approved by the ADA or the American Dental Association. You can find other reliable water flossers online. (Source: https://www.authoritydental.org/best-water-flosser)

Ultrasonic Scalers

These devices are used by dentists to remove calculus and other plaque on teeth. Calcium deposits or calculus are tough to remove. The tip of an ultrasonic scaler can vibrate and destroy calculus buildup in your mouth. Most of these tips are hollow or have a small hole beneath the tip that can shoot out a jet of water to further clear out any plaque left behind.

Takeaway

Most of the time, people rely on themselves to keep their teeth clean and healthy. However, there are times that they need help from a professional, namely a Dentist. Dentists are professionals who are qualified to do procedures on your teeth.

Although Dentists undergo a lot of studying and training, they need specific tools to help them become effective. To do their job effectively, Dentists rely on devices such as Ultrasonic Scalers, Water flossers, Dental Loupes, etc. A good dentist knows how to use these tools to the fullest which in turn allow a less-terrifying experience for most patients.

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo by Daniel Frank on Unsplash.

Podcast: How to Curb Sex Trafficking in the U.S.

Around 2 p.m. every day, some men will use their corporate computers to make an appointment to have sex with a minor—and many of those appointments will occur on corporate property. Businesses, says Geoff Rogers, CEO and co-founder of the U.S. Institute Against Human Trafficking, are among the organizations that may seem to have no connection to sex trafficking—but can play a role in ending it in the United States, where thousands of children, many originally in the foster care system, are now victims of sex trafficking. Plus: We discuss President Donald Trump’s push for Bible literacy classes in public schools.

We also cover these stories:

  • The Congressional Budget Office reports the shutdown cost a total of $3 billion in foregone economic activity that won’t be recovered.
  • Sens. Chuck Grassley, R- Iowa, and Richard  Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced a bill that would require Congress and the public receive a report when a special counsel investigation is over or if the special counsel is fired or resigns.
  • The Midwest is about to be hit with a record-breaking cold snap.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesSoundCloudGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at letters@dailysignal.com. Enjoy the show!

PODCAST BY

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

RELATED ARTICLE: Secret Source For Trafficked Kids: Foster Care

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Pixabay.

Shareholders Challenge Intuit’s Board over Support for Planned Parenthood

Conservative activist shareholders from the National Center for Public Policy Research attended last week’s investors meeting at Intuit (2.1 – Lean Liberal), the parent company of popular financial software platforms TurboTax and QuickBooks.

Citing 2ndVote’s research, representatives of the National Center challenged Intuit CEO Sasan Goodarzi over his company’s financial support for abortion giant Planned Parenthood and anti-religious liberty advocates. National Center’s Justin Danhof submitted the following:

If Intuit wants to spend its investors’ money to fund the abortion industrial complex, it has that right.

However, today we delivered a message loud and clear that support for Planned Parenthood is highly offensive to tens of millions of pro-life Americans, many of whom may choose to boycott the company’s products. And those Americans need to contact Intuit and other corporate supporters of Planned Parenthood if we are going to effectuate real corporate change.

Read Danhof’s complete prepared statement here.

Our research indicates, along with directly funding Planned Parenthood’s abortion business, Intuit has also supported leftist positions on marriage, religious liberty, and environmental issues.

Furthermore, with tax season fast approaching, we’ve investigated Intuit and TurboTax’s competitors to make sure our subscribers have the best information when it comes to choosing a tax preparation service. H&R Block (1.4 – Liberal), the developer of another popular software platform, also has a troubling record on key issues and has donated to the extremely liberal Center for American Progress. However, Jackson-Hewitt (3 – Neutral) has remained neutral on all the issues we assess.

In support of National Center’s efforts, we need your help holding Intuit accountable for supporting Planned Parenthood’s brutal agenda. Not only does abortion end innocent lives, the industry provides cover for criminal activity such as human trafficking and sexual abuse. Use the link below to tell Intuit’s leadership why you will be using Jackson-Hewitt, or a local provider of tax preparation services, because your dollars will not be used to support abortion’s devastating impact.

Send Intuit an Email!

Reach Out to Intuit on Facebook!

Help us continue holding corporations accountable for supporting the left’s agenda by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence

Alex Berenson
Author, Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence


Alex Berenson

Alex Berenson is a graduate of Yale University with degrees in history and economics. He began his career in journalism in 1994 as a business reporter for the Denver Post, joined the financial news website TheStreet.com in 1996, and worked as an investigative reporter for The New York Timesfrom 1999 to 2010, during which time he also served two stints as an Iraq War correspondent. In 2006 he published The Faithful Spy, which won the 2007 Edgar Award for best first novel from the Mystery Writers of America. He has published ten additional novels and two nonfiction books, The Number: How the Drive for Quarterly Earnings Corrupted Wall Street and Corporate Americaand Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence.


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 15, 2019, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.

Seventy miles northwest of New York City is a hospital that looks like a prison, its drab brick buildings wrapped in layers of fencing and barbed wire. This grim facility is called the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Institute. It’s one of three places the state of New York sends the criminally mentally ill—defendants judged not guilty by reason of insanity.

Until recently, my wife Jackie­—Dr. Jacqueline Berenson—was a senior psychiatrist there. Many of Mid-Hudson’s 300 patients are killers and arsonists. At least one is a cannibal. Most have been diagnosed with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia that provoked them to violence against family members or strangers.

A couple of years ago, Jackie was telling me about a patient. In passing, she said something like, Of course he’d been smoking pot his whole life.

Of course? I said.

Yes, they all smoke.

So marijuana causes schizophrenia?

I was surprised, to say the least. I tended to be a libertarian on drugs. Years before, I’d covered the pharmaceutical industry for The New York Times. I was aware of the claims about marijuana as medicine, and I’d watched the slow spread of legalized cannabis without much interest.

Jackie would have been within her rights to say, I know what I’m talking about, unlike you. Instead she offered something neutral like, I think that’s what the big studies say. You should read them.

So I did. The big studies, the little ones, and all the rest. I read everything I could find. I talked to every psychiatrist and brain scientist who would talk to me. And I soon realized that in all my years as a journalist I had never seen a story where the gap between insider and outsider knowledge was so great, or the stakes so high.

I began to wonder why—with the stocks of cannabis companies soaring and politicians promoting legalization as a low-risk way to raise tax revenue and reduce crime—I had never heard the truth about marijuana, mental illness, and violence.

Over the last 30 years, psychiatrists and epidemiologists have turned speculation about marijuana’s dangers into science. Yet over the same period, a shrewd and expensive lobbying campaign has pushed public attitudes about marijuana the other way. And the effects are now becoming apparent.

Almost everything you think you know about the health effects of cannabis, almost everything advocates and the media have told you for a generation, is wrong.

They’ve told you marijuana has many different medical uses. In reality marijuana and THC, its active ingredient, have been shown to work only in a few narrow conditions. They are most commonly prescribed for pain relief. But they are rarely tested against other pain relief drugs like ibuprofen—and in July, a large four-year study of patients with chronic pain in Australia showed cannabis use was associated with greater pain over time.

They’ve told you cannabis can stem opioid use—“Two new studies show how marijuana can help fight the opioid epidemic,” according to Wonkblog, a Washington Post website, in April 2018— and that marijuana’s effects as a painkiller make it a potential substitute for opiates. In reality, like alcohol, marijuana is too weak as a painkiller to work for most people who truly needopiates, such as terminal cancer patients. Even cannabis advocates, like Rob Kampia, the co-founder of the Marijuana Policy Project, acknowledge that they have always viewed medical marijuana laws primarily as a way to protect recreational users.

As for the marijuana-reduces-opiate-use theory, it is based largely on a single paper comparing overdose deaths by state before 2010 to the spread of medical marijuana laws— and the paper’s finding is probably a result of simple geographic coincidence. The opiate epidemic began in Appalachia, while the first states to legalize medical marijuana were in the West. Since 2010, as both the epidemic and medical marijuana laws have spread nationally, the finding has vanished. And the United States, the Western country with the most cannabis use, also has by far the worst problem with opioids.

Research on individual users—a better way to trace cause and effect than looking at aggregate state-level data—consistently shows that marijuana use leads to other drug use. For example, a January 2018 paper in the American Journal of Psychiatry showed that people who used cannabis in 2001 were almost three times as likely to use opiates three years later, even after adjusting for other potential risks.

Most of all, advocates have told you that marijuana is not just safe for people with psychiatric problems like depression, but that it is a potential treatment for those patients. On its website, the cannabis delivery service Eaze offers the “Best Marijuana Strains and Products for Treating Anxiety.” “How Does Cannabis Help Depression?” is the topic of an article on Leafly, the largest cannabis website. But a mountain of peer-reviewed research in top medical journals shows that marijuana can cause or worsen severe mental illness, especially psychosis, the medical term for a break from reality. Teenagers who smoke marijuana regularly are about three times as likely to develop schizophrenia, the most devastating psychotic disorder.

After an exhaustive review, the National Academy of Medicine found in 2017 that “cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk.” Also that “regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder.”

Over the past decade, as legalization has spread, patterns of marijuana use—and the drug itself—have changed in dangerous ways.

Legalization has not led to a huge increase in people using the drug casually. About 15 percent of Americans used cannabis at least once in 2017, up from ten percent in 2006, according to a large federal study called the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. (By contrast, about 65 percent of Americans had a drink in the last year.) But the number of Americans who use cannabis heavily is soaring. In 2006, about three million Americans reported using cannabis at least 300 times a year, the standard for daily use. By 2017, that number had nearly tripled, to eight million, approaching the twelve million Americans who drank alcohol every day. Put another way, one in 15 drinkers consumed alcohol daily; about one in five marijuana users used cannabis that often.

Cannabis users today are also consuming a drug that is far more potent than ever before, as measured by the amount of THC—delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the chemical in cannabis responsible for its psychoactive effects—it contains. In the 1970s, the last time this many Americans used cannabis, most marijuana contained less than two percent THC. Today, marijuana routinely contains 20 to 25 percent THC, thanks to sophisticated farming and cloning techniques—as well as to a demand by users for cannabis that produces a stronger high more quickly. In states where cannabis is legal, many users prefer extracts that are nearly pure THC. Think of the difference between near-beer and a martini, or even grain alcohol, to understand the difference.

These new patterns of use have caused problems with the drug to soar. In 2014, people who had diagnosable cannabis use disorder, the medical term for marijuana abuse or addiction, made up about 1.5 percent of Americans. But they accounted for eleven percent of all the psychosis cases in emergency rooms—90,000 cases, 250 a day, triple the number in 2006. In states like Colorado, emergency room physicians have become experts on dealing with cannabis-induced psychosis.

Cannabis advocates often argue that the drug can’t be as neurotoxic as studies suggest, because otherwise Western countries would have seen population-wide increases in psychosis alongside rising use. In reality, accurately tracking psychosis cases is impossible in the United States. The government carefully tracks diseases like cancer with central registries, but no such registry exists for schizophrenia or other severe mental illnesses.

On the other hand, research from Finland and Denmark, two countries that track mental illness more comprehensively, shows a significant increase in psychosis since 2000, following an increase in cannabis use. And in September of last year, a large federal survey found a rise in serious mental illness in the United States as well, especially among young adults, the heaviest users of cannabis.

According to this latter study, 7.5 percent of adults age 18-25 met the criteria for serious mental illness in 2017, double the rate in 2008. What’s especially striking is that adolescents age 12-17 don’t show these increases in cannabis use and severe mental illness.

A caveat: this federal survey doesn’t count individual cases, and it lumps psychosis with other severe mental illness. So it isn’t as accurate as the Finnish or Danish studies. Nor do any of these studies prove that rising cannabis use has caused population-wide increases in psychosis or other mental illness. The most that can be said is that they offer intriguing evidence of a link.

Advocates for people with mental illness do not like discussing the link between schizophrenia and crime. They fear it will stigmatize people with the disease. “Most people with mental illness are not violent,” the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) explains on its website. But wishing away the link can’t make it disappear. In truth, psychosis is a shockingly high risk factor for violence. The best analysis came in a 2009 paper in PLOS Medicine by Dr. Seena Fazel, an Oxford University psychiatrist and epidemiologist. Drawing on earlier studies, the paper found that people with schizophrenia are five times as likely to commit violent crimes as healthy people, and almost 20 times as likely to commit homicide.

NAMI’s statement that most people with mental illness are not violent is of course accurate, given that “most” simply means “more than half”; but it is deeply misleading. Schizophrenia is rare. But people with the disorder commit an appreciable fraction of all murders, in the range of six to nine percent.

“The best way to deal with the stigma is to reduce the violence,” says Dr. Sheilagh Hodgins, a professor at the University of Montreal who has studied mental illness and violence for more than 30 years.

The marijuana-psychosis-violence connection is even stronger than those figures suggest. People with schizophrenia are only moderately more likely to become violent than healthy people when they are taking antipsychotic medicine and avoiding recreational drugs. But when they use drugs, their risk of violence skyrockets. “You don’t just have an increased risk of one thing—these things occur in clusters,” Dr. Fazel told me.

Along with alcohol, the drug that psychotic patients use more than any other is cannabis: a 2010 review of earlier studies in Schizophrenia Bulletin found that 27 percent of people with schizophrenia had been diagnosed with cannabis use disorder in their lives. And unfortunately—despite its reputation for making users relaxed and calm—cannabis appears to provoke many of them to violence.

A Swiss study of 265 psychotic patients published in Frontiers of Forensic Psychiatry last June found that over a three-year period, young men with psychosis who used cannabis had a 50 percent chance of becoming violent. That risk was four times higher than for those with psychosis who didn’t use, even after adjusting for factors such as alcohol use. Other researchers have produced similar findings. A 2013 paper in an Italian psychiatric journal examined almost 1,600 psychiatric patients in southern Italy and found that cannabis use was associated with a ten-fold increase in violence.

The most obvious way that cannabis fuels violence in psychotic people is through its tendency to cause paranoia—something even cannabis advocates acknowledge the drug can cause. The risk is so obvious that users joke about it and dispensaries advertise certain strains as less likely to induce paranoia. And for people with psychotic disorders, paranoia can fuel extreme violence. A 2007 paper in the Medical Journal of Australia on 88 defendants who had committed homicide during psychotic episodes found that most believed they were in danger from the victim, and almost two-thirds reported misusing cannabis—more than alcohol and amphetamines combined.

Yet the link between marijuana and violence doesn’t appear limited to people with preexisting psychosis. Researchers have studied alcohol and violence for generations, proving that alcohol is a risk factor for domestic abuse, assault, and even murder. Far less work has been done on marijuana, in part because advocates have stigmatized anyone who raises the issue. But studies showing that marijuana use is a significant risk factor for violence have quietly piled up. Many of them weren’t even designed to catch the link, but they did. Dozens of such studies exist, covering everything from bullying by high school students to fighting among vacationers in Spain.

In most cases, studies find that the risk is at least as significant as with alcohol. A 2012 paper in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined a federal survey of more than 9,000 adolescents and found that marijuana use was associated with a doubling of domestic violence; a 2017 paper in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology examined drivers of violence among 6,000 British and Chinese men and found that drug use—the drug nearly always being cannabis—translated into a five-fold increase in violence.

Today that risk is translating into real-world impacts. Before states legalized recreational cannabis, advocates said that legalization would let police focus on hardened criminals rather than marijuana smokers and thus reduce violent crime. Some advocates go so far as to claim that legalization has reduced violent crime. In a 2017 speech calling for federal legalization, U.S. Senator Cory Booker said that “states [that have legalized marijuana] are seeing decreases in violent crime.” He was wrong.

The first four states to legalize marijuana for recreational use were Colorado and Washington in 2014 and Alaska and Oregon in 2015. Combined, those four states had about 450 murders and 30,300 aggravated assaults in 2013. Last year, they had almost 620 murders and 38,000 aggravated assaults—an increase of 37 percent for murders and 25 percent for aggravated assaults, far greater than the national increase, even after accounting for differences in population growth.

Knowing exactly how much of the increase is related to cannabis is impossible without researching every crime. But police reports, news stories, and arrest warrants suggest a close link in many cases. For example, last September, police in Longmont, Colorado, arrested Daniel Lopez for stabbing his brother Thomas to death as a neighbor watched. Daniel Lopez had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and was “self-medicating” with marijuana, according to an arrest affidavit.

In every state, not just those where marijuana is legal, cases like Lopez’s are far more common than either cannabis or mental illness advocates acknowledge. Cannabis is also associated with a disturbing number of child deaths from abuse and neglect—many more than alcohol, and more than cocaine, methamphetamines, and opioids combined—according to reports from Texas, one of the few states to provide detailed information on drug use by perpetrators.

These crimes rarely receive more than local attention. Psychosis-induced violence takes particularly ugly forms and is frequently directed at helpless family members. The elite national media prefers to ignore the crimes as tabloid fodder. Even police departments, which see this violence up close, have been slow to recognize the trend, in part because the epidemic of opioid overdose deaths has overwhelmed them.

So the black tide of psychosis and the red tide of violence are rising steadily, almost unnoticed, on a slow green wave.

For centuries, people worldwide have understood that cannabis causes mental illness and violence—just as they’ve known that opiates cause addiction and overdose. Hard data on the relationship between marijuana and madness dates back 150 years, to British asylum registers in India. Yet 20 years ago, the United States moved to encourage wider use of cannabis and opiates.

In both cases, we decided we could outsmart these drugs—that we could have their benefits without their costs. And in both cases we were wrong. Opiates are riskier, and the overdose deaths they cause a more imminent crisis, so we have focused on those. But soon enough the mental illness and violence that follow cannabis use will also be too widespread to ignore.

Whether to use cannabis, or any drug, is a personal decision. Whether cannabis should be legal is a political issue. But its precise legal status is far less important than making sure that anyone who uses it is aware of its risks. Most cigarette smokers don’t die of lung cancer. But we have made it widely known that cigarettes cause cancer, full stop. Most people who drink and drive don’t have fatal accidents. But we have highlighted the cases of those who do.

We need equally unambiguous and well-funded advertising campaigns on the risks of cannabis. Instead, we are now in the worst of all worlds. Marijuana is legal in some states, illegal in others, dangerously potent, and sold without warnings everywhere.

But before we can do anything, we—especially cannabis advocates and those in the elite media who have for too long credulously accepted their claims—need to come to terms with the truth about the science on marijuana. That adjustment may be painful. But the alternative is far worse, as the patients at Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Institute—and their victims—know.

EDITORS NOTE: This Imprimis column is republished with permission The featured photo is by Smoke & Vibe on Unsplash

The Covington Debacle Shows the Founders Were Right to Distrust Democracy

In an age in which contempt for fellow citizens is reaching pathological levels, we can be thankful that these institutions exist to protect us.

n the shallow world of modernity, we throw around a word like “democracy” as a stand-in for “things that I like.”

Many in popular culture and elite institutions promote democracy as a cure for all that ails us—an unquestioned and unqualified blessing.

Still others turn on a dime and hope for its demise as soon as it produces outcomes they don’t like.

While democracy often plays a good and necessary role in a self-governing society, we have lost the healthy skepticism of its worst excesses that the Founding Fathers understood when they established the governing institutions of the United States.

These excesses were on full display over the weekend.

The frenzied hate mob unleashed on Catholic, “Make America Great Again” hat-wearing teens—falsely accused of harassing a Native American at the March for Life over the weekend—is a shameful reminder of how fake news can destroy lives and perpetuate evil.

Particularly disturbing is how so many people—celebrities, politicians, and even some respected leaders who should have been warier of grabbing their pitchforks before the facts had been unveiled—fell in with the scramble to condemn the students as hateful racists.

Many of these voices called for violence and other heinous actions against the children from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky. There could be no quarter, no forgiveness, no mercy. The mob needed its pound of flesh.

Celebrities and so-called thought leaders spun out articles and social media posts comparing the Covington Catholic students to segregationists and Ku Klux Klansman, condemning the Catholic Church for a “shameful history of Native American abuses,” and even angrily claiming that smirks and smiles are actually racist.

Even the students’ local diocese quickly rushed into the fray to condemn the students, in effect giving cover to the media outlets seeking to ruin the students’ lives and reputations.

The story was just too good to fact check, too easy to force into a cherished narrative: that white, male Christians are unleashing violence, bigotry, and harassment on minorities all over America.

The problem is, the entire narrative was based on a wild distortion of what occurred.

The vicious and often unhinged diatribes we saw launched against the Covington Catholic students laid bare an irrational rage burning beneath the rule of law.

It is no stretch to think that left unchecked, the mob—especially the rage-fueled left—would have unjustly stripped these students of their basic freedoms and abandoned the notion of a presumption of innocence in a rush to judgment.

This is the same pattern we saw transpire in the confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

So, is the problem our reckless and agenda-driven media? Yes, in part.

Media coverage of this incident was dreadful and shameful—a confirmation for many that even America’s most established and influential media institutions have become hopelessly biased and reckless in the age of Trump.

But the problem goes deeper than that. The truth is, fake news was every bit as much a problem in the late 1700s, when our country was formed, as it is today.

The use of the printing press allowed knowledge to travel like wildfire but also gave hucksters and falsehood peddlers a new tool for spreading their wares more effectively.

True, our news today travels much faster, and social media can spread hysteria like a virus. But there’s also an upside.

Public intellectuals and members of the media continually decry the decentralized nature of the internet and its ability to generate “fake news” and misleading stories. They long for the day when America had just a few big outlets acting as responsible news arbiters.

Some even suggest that the answer is to create government agencies to sort through this information and tell us what the truth is, such as what Europe is experimenting with.

This is a terrible way to address the issue.

It was legacy media outlets in the first place—like The New York TimesThe Washington Post, and CNN—that perpetuated the deceptive reporting we witnessed over the weekend and failed to follow basic journalistic practices, such as inquiring about both sides of a heated dispute.

News outlets point to foreign agents and anonymous Twitter accounts that promoted a slanted view of the controversy, but they are just using them as scapegoats. Their own journalistic malpractice is the heart of the problem.

This wouldn’t be the first time these outlets got a story massively wrong and deceived the American people, but now we at least have greater means to debunk falsehoods when they arise.

It was the skeptics who took the time to study the story from all angles, like Robby Soave at Reason, who blew the story up. Soave reviewed footage from the hours of amateur video taken of the incident. While legacy media outlets were still peddling the initial, deceptive narrative, it was collapsing with a simple review of easily obtainable evidence that refuted it.

As my colleague, Kelsey Harkness, noted on “Fox & Friends”: “Just imagine if there were no hourlong, or two-hourlong videos that could exonerate these high school boys. Their lives could be ruined.”

If anything, we need to learn a valuable lesson from this incident.

We should today heed the wisdom of John Adams, who wrote to his friend John Taylor about the excesses of democracy.

This lesson is especially important now as it’s clear that many—especially on the left—have deep and unrelenting contempt for their fellow citizens who disagree with them. He explained that while democracy is no worse than “monarchy or aristocracy,” it is often bloodier than either and “wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

Pure democracies devour themselves, Adams wrote, as citizens turn against citizens. “It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy.”

He continued:

Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.

The failures of democracy are the result of the fallen nature of man—a condition that cannot be cured and cannot be changed.

This is why the framers of the Constitution formed our federal republic with a complex web of checks on power.

Democracy had its place—most specifically in the frequent elections of the House of Representatives—but it was removed from decisions dealing with fundamental rights, such as free speech and the right to bear arms enshrined in the First and Second Amendments.

This is the balance the Founders sought to preserve our freedom, and in many cases, save us from ourselves.

The framers designed our system to slow down decision-making—especially at the highest, federal level—to frustrate the ambition of the leaders who represent us, to throw water on the temporary, to excite passions of the people, which may lead the country to folly or tyranny.

These concepts may be lost on progressives and those on the left who believe in the evolution or perfectibility of man (which seems untenable given that they see a potential fascist in everyone who disagrees with them).

But the Founders likely wouldn’t have been surprised by the noxious media frenzy that set out to destroy a few high school students in the name of social justice.

The Founders well understood the threat of fake news. They wisely assessed that despite the threat, the government could not be a trusted arbiter of what is real and fake—so they created the First Amendment.

Then, knowing that this judgment of truth and falsehood could be left only to the people in a free society, they put guardrails on the people themselves so that they could not use this power to tyrannize their fellow citizens on a whim.

This is the genius of America. This is why we have the world’s oldest republic.

The Founders may not have known us, but they knew history, and they themselves. They knew that unrestrained democracy would lead to a destruction of all freedom, the annihilation of God-given individual rights that governments of all types had trampled throughout human history.

In an age in which contempt for fellow citizens is reaching pathological levels, we can be thankful that these institutions exist to protect us.

Yet given the retreat of constitutional government over the past century, we have less cause for certainty that they will continue to save us from ourselves.

COLUMN BY

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal

EDITORS NOTE: This article with images was reprinted from The Daily Signal with permission. Image credit: Pixabay.

Planned Parenthood and the African-American Community

Does Planned Parenthood target blacks? That is what Dr. Martin Luther King’s niece thinks.

Recently, I spoke on my radio show with Evangelist Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She is the Director of Civil Rights for the Unborn with the organization Priests for Life. The focus was on Planned Parenthood and the African-American community.

Her comments are relevant all year around, especially around this time of MLK day and the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision favoring abortion, Roe v. Wade (January 22, 1973).

Dr. Alveda King told me, “The leading cause of death in the African-American community is not gang-violence, gun violence, heart attack, stroke, HIV, high blood pressure, diabetes. People will name all these. No, it’s abortion. And the reason we have come to that conclusion, statistically, you’ve got 60 million plus abortions legal in America since 1973. About a third of those occur in the African-American community. That means dead babies. And, with us being 13 percent or less of America’s population, that means we are having more abortions.”

She asked, “Now does it mean that African-Americans are more immoral or don’t care? Absolutely not. We are just regular, everyday people like everyone else. But Planned Parenthood moved into our community with the abortion killing centers and said, ‘We’re here to help you. Let’s kill your baby, so you can have a better life.’ Well, killing our babies doesn’t give us a better life. I have had my own abortions in the 1970s. They were secret then, and after I became born again in 1983 and became a pro-life voice, I began to talk about how those abortions hurt me and my family.”

In 1921, Margaret Sanger founded the Birth Control League, which later changed its name to Planned Parenthood. Dr. Paul Kengor, author of Takedown, writes about when Sanger spoke to the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey in May 1926: “The Planned Parenthood founder’s KKK talk was a smash hit. Not only did it go very late, after a very long wait, but she received numerous invitations to speak to other groups like the Klan. Why would the KKK be so interested in Ms. Sanger? The reasons are obvious, a natural fit. It was because Sanger was a passionate racial eugenicist with grandiose dreams of ‘race improvement.’”

Alveda King told our listeners: “Margaret Sanger, the founder of the Birth Control League [later, Planned Parenthood], said, that ‘colored people are like weeds,’ and they need to be eliminated. They need to be exterminated. We don’t want the word to get out, so let’s not package it that way. So that’s why they began to make a lot of propaganda and marketing materials, saying that abortion is a woman’s right. It will help her to finish college, get a job, do this or do that.”

Christian author and educator Dr. George Grant points out that it was not just the African-American community Sanger targeted for population control: “Now for Margaret Sanger and her followers, those undesirable aspects of humanity were largely ethnic minorities: blacks, Jews, oftentimes Slavic peoples from Eastern Europe. These were considered undesirables, ‘imbeciles’ she called them, ‘human weeds’ she called them; and so Planned Parenthood was originally designed to limit the populations of those peoples and to increase the population of what she felt were the desirable races. So right at the heart of the philosophy of Planned Parenthood is this ideological and scientific commitment to a kind of racism.”

Sanger did not want it known that she believed blacks should be targeted for a significant reduction in their population. She wrote, “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” (Margaret Sanger, Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939.)

Alveda notes that Planned Parenthood said in effect, “We don’t want the word to get out, so let’s get a slick marketing plan.” That plan included such things as handing out awards (such as to her uncle—a few years before Planned Parenthood began to do abortions, beginning in 1970) and scholarships. She said, “So many people rose to success on the backs and bucks of Planned Parenthood—the rabid, feminist movement, for example—a lot of people who have been elected…the Congressional black caucus—many of them were put in office and are still in office because of dollars from eugenicists, such as Planned Parenthood.”

To see for yourself the ongoing racism of Planned Parenthood in action, notice how often their clinics are still in very poor neighborhoods. Alveda notes some of those Planned Parenthood neighborhoods have streets nearby named after her uncle.

Alveda King concludes, “That’s a baby in the womb, who should have human rights, and I believe if my uncle were here today, he would have to agree that abortion is a crime against humanity.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Cardinal Dolan: Excommunicating Andrew Cuomo “Not an Appropriate Response” for Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Zach Vessels on Unsplash.

GAY IS ANTI-LIFE: They’ll even kill to commit sodomy.

TRANSCRIPT

Exactly 46 years ago today — to the day — the U.S. Supreme Court authorized the mass extinction of tens of millions of pre-born children — cloaking the genocide in a made up out of thin air, alleged right to privacy.

That right to privacy then went on to hatch even more destruction — against the family, natural law and so forth. One of the big issues it gave birth to was, again, a never before heard of right to sodomite marriage.

Well, those two issues linked arms and joined forces a few days ago in a “Catholic” setting as two homosexual men stood in front of a parish just before Sunday Mass with their little boy Cohen and presented a syrupy presentation about just how normal they are and how completely ordinary their situation is.

More to the point: They waxed on about how the parish was so welcoming and accepting and how wonderful all the people in it were. They were inspired to start going there regularly because on an earlier trip, they had seen a lesbian couple bringing up the gifts and being warmly accepted.

At the end of their seven-minute presentation — rife with heresy — they received a standing ovation from the warm, friendly, accepting parishioners who just ate it all up.

The normalization of not just homosexuality anymore in Catholic parishes, but now on top of it, the accompanying child abuse that occurs when a child is “born” of a sodomite pairing — yes, we said, “Born.” Because this child was not adopted. The little boy, Cohen, is a product of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and a woman whose womb the homosexuals rented because natural law prevents them from having sex, conceiving, bearing and giving birth.

So they used every technological ability at their disposal to simply skirt all Church teaching further and bring a new life into the world, willfully depriving that boy of his God-given right to a mommy.

And the pastor allowed this. And the crowd went wild. And the bishop, well, he did issue a statement expressing his displeasure and said he would be meeting to “discuss the situation” after he gets back from the March for Life events in D.C.

The diocese is the archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, the parish is St. Joan of Arc and the bishop is Archbishop Bernard Hebda.

The two clerical clowns who run the parish are the pastor, Fr. Jim DeBruycker, and the parochial vicar, Fr. James Cassidy — you wouldn’t even know they are priests.

These men allow this evil to take place — in fact, they encourage it. Every Sunday, whatever wild-eyed modernist who wants to ramble on about gay this or that, immigration, trans this or that, climate change is invited to get up and speak for a few minutes on just how Catholic their immorality is — how central to their faith.

For example, the gay lovers told the fawning audience — and at this point, that’s all this parish is: an audience — that it was good for Cohen to have to fathers.

They also simply passed right over the horror of IVF — again speaking of it in purely ordinary terms. And this is where the gay, anti-life crowd finds its footing.

Surely, these two sodomites posing as actual Catholics must know that the IVF method automatically results in the death of many other children as part of the process.

Various eggs (where did two men get female eggs?) are all fertilized, allowed to grow for a period and then the ones determined to be best suited to come to full term are then implanted — in this case in a rented womb.

The others — meaning the other humans — they are “discarded,” a short little euphemism for killed. If, as is pretty routine, more than one tiny human was implanted in the rent-a-womb surrogate, at some point, “selection” is made again and the “leftovers” are killed in utero.

This is malevolent. Are the two homo “dads” going to tell little Cohen that in order for him to come into existence, they had to kill off some brothers and sisters of him, because since all they can do is sodomize each other, they had to resort to science?

Are they going to tell him that they actively chose to deny him a mommy because, in the end, all they cared about was trying to make their sodomy look normal?

But perhaps most pressing: Is Archbishop Hebda going to move to laicize the clergy that promote this horror, and is he going to disband that parish — which doesn’t even call itself a parish — it’s a “community.”

Hebda did not necessarily cause this issue, at least not at this parish, but he is certainly responsible now for stopping it dead in its tracks.

If that parish is still around, if those priests are still around at the end of the month, that will tell you everything you need to know about Archbishop Hebda.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video with images is republished with permission.

Why Are Leftists Thrilled by Abortion?

Hillary Clinton and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced their satanic bill to allow abortions through all nine months up to birth. The intense jubilant faces of these two Democrats in the photo while launching their baby killing campaign was bone-chillingly evil. Clinton and Cuomo held their joined hands high in the air like an enthusiastic victorious battle-cry as they grinned ear to ear. Why were they so happy? Why were these leftist politicians barely able to contain their excitement over the thought of killing more babies?

During her presidential campaign, Hillary vowed to protect animals from cruelty and abuse. And yet, Hillary is elated over her bill to allow abortion doctors to deliver a nine-month-old baby except for the head; then shove scissors into its brain to kill it. This barbaric, shameful and evil procedure is called partial birth abortion

Hillary cosponsored the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act to end the slaughter of horses for their meat. Meanwhile, Hillary passionately defends Planned Parenthood which kills babies for their meat; selling dead baby body parts – intact heads sell for premium prices. Planned Parenthood has made over $100 million selling aborted baby parts

Abortion zealots fear a conservative majority on the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade the unconstitutional law which made abortion legal. Here’s how abortion activist Sarah Silverman expressed the urgency of keeping constitutional judge Brett Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. “This is a position for life, y’all”. In her sad perverted thinking, Silverman infers that women will die if they cannot for whatever reason kill the horrible thing (baby) growing inside them even on the birth date

Eighty-five year old pro-abortion Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health is failing. If she dies or retires, leftists fear Trump’s replacement will be a conservative. Panicked female abortion zealots are offering their body parts to keep Ginsberg alive. Abortion zealot Alyssa Milano offered her ribs, kidneys and a lung to Justice Ginsberg. Notice the intense passion to do whatever necessary to freely kill babies in the womb.

“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you…” (Jeremiah 1:5)

Alyssa Milano through The Fuzzy Pet Foundation compassionately rescued a dog in South Korea being raised for slaughter. It appears that Milano has zero compassion for innocent babies. She is insanely committed to murdering them before birth. Also, Milano has not complained about Planned Parenthood profiting from the sales of slaughtered baby body parts.

In 2018, abortion was the number one cause of death worldwide; over 41 million children killed before birth. Again I ask, why is this horrifying stat cause for leftists to celebrate?

In a landslide, Ireland voters repealed their anti-abortion laws. Many observers were uncomfortable with the eerie jubilation of thousands of women in the streets hugging while crying tears of sheer joy

Co-director of the abortion campaign, Orla O’Connor said, “This is a monumental day for women in Ireland. This is about women taking their rightful place in Irish society, finally.”

Another Irish women thrilled about killing babies said, “ It’s such a great victory for women, for men, for our future generation. It’s just – I’m so emotional.”

“And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…” (Genesis 1:28) Despite God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”, many youths vow not to have children because leftists have convinced them that childbirth is extremely destructive to the environment. Leftists foolishly believe they are smarter than God.

Unquestionably, abortion is the holy sacrament of the demonic religion of liberalism. Shockingly, over 20 religious leaders gathered to bless the opening of a new Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Washington DC. President and CEO, Dr Laura Meyers said, “In almost every message to our staff, I talk about our doing sacred work.” https://bit.ly/2RsMSaj What is wrong with these people? How can they claim moral and spiritual high ground killing babies and selling their body parts?

Insanely, a majority of the religious leaders who blessed the new dead-baby-chop-shop are black. A disproportionate high number of aborted babies are blacks. Right thinking black ministers have been sounding the alarm for years how blacks are aborting themselves in extinction.

Leftists are in constant rebellion against God’s natural order. Leftist women act like pregnancy is God’s cursed disease as devastating as cancer and abortion is the life-saving cure.

Abortion zealots do not view abortion as a necessary evil. They are actually thrilled when a mother murders her baby. There is something strange and disturbingly evil about leftists having all the sympathy in the world for animals and not an ounce of sympathy (even disdain) for innocent unborn babies – jubilant when a mother kills her baby.

RELATED ARTICLES:

We Had an Abortion. It Wasn’t My Body, but It Was My Baby.

She Got Pregnant at 18 and Did Something That Today, Few Teens Do

Podcast: The Price Children Pay for the Sexual Revolution

Young Students Explain Why They’re Pro-Life

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured image is by the National Right to Life Committee.