The Senate Impeachment Trial: 8 Things You Need to Know

/in , , , , , , /by

The House of Representatives has chosen members to participate in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and they have presented the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

This is only the third impeachment trial of a president in our nation’s history, with the others occurring in 1868 for Andrew Johnson and 1999 for Bill Clinton.

Here are eight things you need to know as the Senate prepares to begin Trump’s impeachment trial.

1. When Will the Trial Begin, and How Long Will It Last?

Senate President Pro Tempore Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, administered the oath Thursday to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will preside over the trial.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Roberts, in turn, administered the oath to all senators. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., announced that the trial itself will begin at 1 p.m. Tuesday.

The Clinton impeachment took five weeks, and Johnson’s lasted 11 weeks. The Senate’s impeachment trial rules, adopted in 1986, mandate that the trial should begin at noon and last until the Senate decides to adjourn, Monday through Saturday, “until final judgment shall be rendered.”

2. What Happens at the Trial?

An impeachment trial is not like a run-of-the-mill trial, but it does have some similarities. House managers will act as the prosecution, presenting the case for impeachment to the senators, whose role is a combination of judge and jury.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., announced the seven members of the House who will serve as the managers, including Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

A team of lawyers will put on the president’s defense, including White House counsel Pat Cipollone; Trump’s personal attorney, Jay Sekulow; and former independent counsel Ken Starr, whose investigation into the Whitewater controversy led to Clinton’s impeachment.

Roberts will preside over the trial, consistent with Article 3, Section 6 of the Constitution, although it is mostly a ceremonial role.

After presiding over Clinton’s impeachment trial, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, “I took a leaf out of [Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic opera] ‘Iolanthe’ … ‘I did nothing in particular, and did it very well.’”

When the trial begins, the Senate will adopt a resolution establishing the specific timetable, including the time allotted for each side to present its case, senators to ask questions, and the Senate to consider motions.

At that point, if the Senate follows the general pattern of the Clinton trial, the Senate will vote on a motion to dismiss the impeachment and, if that motion fails, on whether additional witnesses or evidence should be considered.

During Johnson’s impeachment trial, the prosecution and defense called a total of 41 witnesses. During the Clinton trial, three witnesses provided videotaped testimony.

McConnell and several other Senate Republicans have indicated they think the Senate should rely on transcripts of the testimony of witnesses who appeared before the House, while Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and several other Democrats have demanded that witnesses be called to testify.

3. Does the President Have to Appear Before the Senate?

No. While the Senate does issue a summons to the individual being tried, its impeachment trial rules allow for an appearance by the defendant or by his attorney.

The Senate tried, unsuccessfully, to force Johnson to appear for his impeachment trial. The New York Times published an account of how Chief Justice Salmon Chase asked the Senate sergeant-at-arms to summon the president.

“In a loud voice, and amid the stillness of the whole chamber, he called three times, ‘Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Johnson!’” but instead the president’s legal team, including Attorney General Henry Stanbery (who resigned the day before) and former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis, arrived.

Clinton likewise did not appear before the Senate during his trial.

Trump previously indicated he would “strongly consider” testifying or providing a written statement to the House during its impeachment inquiry, but that didn’t happen. Odds are, Trump won’t be present at the Senate trial.

4. What Are the Rules the Senators Will Follow?

Senators are not required to employ a specific standard of proof. During the 1986 impeachment trial of U.S. District Judge Harry E. Claiborne, he made a motion to designate “beyond a reasonable doubt”—the standard in criminal trials—as the standard for his trial.

After the presiding officer ruled that “the question of standard of evidence is for each senator to decide individually,” the Senate voted 75 to 17 against establishing a mandatory standard.

Similarly, the rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply in an impeachment trial. The Senate’s impeachment trial rules state that the Senate’s presiding officer has the authority to rule on questions of evidence.

Any senator, however, may ask that the full Senate vote on such matters. That reflects the Constitution’s assignment to the Senate of “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

5. Can Senators Be Disqualified for Showing Bias?

Senators have taken an oath to “do impartial justice, according to the Constitution and laws” in all things pertaining to the impeachment trial.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the minority whip, argued that some senators have already failed to meet the “independent and dignified” standard the Constitution envisioned.

There have already been calls for the House managers to move to disqualify senators whose impartiality is in question. There is no basis in the Constitution, Senate rules, or history for such an attempt.

The only qualification for participating in a Senate impeachment trial is to be a senator.

6. What Happens After the Trial?

While the trial itself will be open to the public, the Senate’s deliberations after its conclusion will not be.

The Senate will then come back into public session to vote on each article of impeachment. Senate impeachment trial rules say that the Senate must vote on each article in its entirety, and the Constitution requires the vote of “two-thirds of the [senators] present” for conviction.

Removal from office is automatic upon conviction, and the Senate may vote separately whether to disqualify the defendant from serving in any other federal office.

The Constitution explicitly provides, however, that these consequences by the Senate do not, if the defendant’s conduct is also criminal, prevent “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

7. If the Vote Fails in the Senate, Can the President Be Retried?

In theory, he likely could be retried in the future. Although neither the Constitution nor Senate rules address this issue, and no precedent exists for it, a few legal scholars, such as former Obama administration official Neal Katyal, have pointed out that the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to impeachment proceedings.

A retrial on the same charges, however, would seem highly unlikely, and such a retrial would certainly run counter to the general principle of double jeopardy that someone cannot be tried twice for the same offense.

What is more plausible and likely is that the House would introduce new articles of impeachment, which it could do.

8. Will the Senate Conduct Other Business During the Trial, and Will It Interfere With the Supreme Court’s Work?

Senate committees may hold hearings in the morning of each trial day, but doing any business such as sending bills, nominations, or other matters to the full Senate would require the consent of all senators.

The Senate impeachment rules provide that the chamber must suspend its legislative and executive business while the trial is under way.

The trial should not affect the Supreme Court’s oral argument schedule. The court has arguments scheduled Tuesday and Wednesday, but those will conclude by 11 a.m.

The court won’t meet again for arguments until Feb. 24. Aside from taking up some of Roberts’ time in the afternoon, the trial is unlikely to otherwise affect the court.

COLUMN BY

Thomas Jipping

Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @TomJipping,

Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the proper role of the courts, judicial nominations, and the Constitution as a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. She hosts SCOTUS101, a podcast about everything that’s happening at the Supreme Court. Twitter: @EHSlattery.

RELATED ARTICLES:

House’s Prosecutors Supported Impeachment Well Before Trump’s Ukraine Call

Impeachment Diary Day 1: Battle Lines Drawn

Republicans Vote Down Chuck Schumer’s Amendment Requesting White House Documents

RELATED VIDEO: Marsha Blackburn: Senate can only review, not expand Impeachment

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

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

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

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

Dalia Al-Aqidi Challenges Ilhan Omar for House Seat

/in , , , , , , /by

American Muslim Dalia Al-Aqidi has formally launched her campaign to oust Congresswoman Ilhan Omar from Minnesota’s 5th district. Her campaign, Dalia for Congress, is rooted in her life experience as an Iraqi refugee, a veteran journalist with a distinguished track record and in her desire to protect America from becoming another country to escape from.

“I’ve seen up close the consequences of what radical Ilhan Omar is doing. Conflict. Division. Oppression. I escaped that world once, and I won’t let it happen here. I’m running for Congress because we’re not as divided as Ilhan Omar and the far-left would have us believe. I’m running to bring us closer together.” – Dalia Al-Aqidi

Born in Iraq, Dalia  and her family fled the country in 1988 due to harsh persecution by Saddam Hussein, leaving almost every possession behind. Her family created a new life for themselves and became U.S. citizens.

Prior to Dalia and her family’s immigration to the U.S., with the help of late U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, she was politically active against Hussein’s brutality and oppression of the Iraq people.

Dalia has seen the consequences of Omar’s version of an ideal government—she’s seen the kind of hatred it inspires and what it has done to the Middle East. That’s why Dalia felt that it was her responsibility to stop her—to stop the widening rift among Americans and instead unite our country under the values that she immigrated here for.

Immediately, her campaign received tremendous support, including from distinguished anti-Islamists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, also of Somali heritage.

After formerly living in Washington, D.C. Dalia Al-Aqidi moved to Minnesota’s 5th district a few months ago during which time she worked to better understand the community. Speaking with the New York Post, Dalia shared,

“I’ve done my homework for months and months before I decided to move here. On Thanksgiving, I helped feed more than 250 homeless people in Minneapolis, which [Ilhan Omar] doesn’t remember. She doesn’t even talk about homeless situation in Minneapolis, which is extremely cold and there are not enough places of shelters for them to sleep in. It’s a very, very important problem in Minneapolis, and it’s getting very cold.”

Some in the Somali community are quietly supporting Dalia. Speaking with a Post reporter, one member of the Somali community confided,

“It’s just one crisis after another. She [Ilhan Omar] could have done so much more for our community with immigration and education, but she’s not. She’s picking fights.”

The fights spoken of are a barrage of anti-Semitic comments and targeted attacks against progressive Muslim women serving the broader global community as human rights activists, including Muslim for Progressive Values founder, Ani Zonnvelde.

Omar most recently smeared the leading Iranian women’s rights activist, Masih Alinejad, after Soleimani’s killing.

In July 2017, Clarion’s National Correspondent Shireen Qudosi called Ilhan Omar a failed American experiment. At the launch of Dalia for Congress, Qudosi said,

“Dalia Al-Aqidi vs. Ilhan Omar is the most important race second to the presidency. But we’ve also already seen Trump win once. The entire nation will be locked in on this congressional race. This is a battle between American Muslims vs. Islamist Muslims.

“As an American Muslim, this is the most defining and historic confrontation of our generation. Dalia defeating Ilhan represents Americans striking a blow against Islamism. If you don’t love America, if you can’t defend it, you have no business representing Americans. Being American means something; it’s a philosophy that transcends a piece of paper.”

On the same day that Dalia for Congress launched, news also broke that at least three federal departments are reviewing Ilhan Omar for what is being described as the worst-ever crime spree by an elected U.S. official.

RELATED STORIES:

Dalia Al-Aqidi: The Interview Ilhan Omar Refused to Accept

Ilhan Omar vs. Miss Iraq: The Feud

Ilhan Omar Bashes Progressive Muslim Leader 

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

State of Ignorance: California Pushes False Information to School Kids on the Second Amendment

/in , , , , , /by

As an incorporated provision of the United States Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land, applying to all U.S. jurisdictions and to the actions of federal, state, and local officials. The U.S. Supreme Court provides the final and authoritative interpretation of that provision, as well as other provisions of the U.S. Constitution. All of this is elementary civics.

But the State of California believes it knows better, requiring publisher McGraw-Hill to annotate a discussion of the Bill of Rights in a popular social studies textbook with the state’s own peculiar view of the Second Amendment’s meaning.

According to pictures from the California edition in the New York Times, the annotation states:

Right to Bear Arms This amendment is often debated. Originally it was intended to prevent the national government from repeating the actions of the British, who tried to take weapons away from the colonial militia, or armed forces of the citizens. This amendment seems to support the right of citizens to own firearms, but the Supreme Court has ruled it does not prevent Congress from regulating the interstate sale of weapons.

The Times article goes on to state that the publisher “said it had created the additional wording on the Second Amendment and gun control for the California textbook.” The same language, however, does not appear in a national version of the same section, according to the Times report.

The point of the New York Times article is to suggest that different states emphasize different aspects of U.S. history in otherwise similar textbooks, depending on the prevailing political outlook among the state’s education officials.

Whatever might be said of that approach, the problem with California’s account of the Second Amendment isn’t just one of emphasis but of accuracy. California, which prides itself on being one of the most anti-gun states in the nation, simply gets it wrong, using language that falsely portrays the Second Amendment as a “debated” provision that has changed meaning over time and that only “seems” to protect an individual right.

Any “debate” about the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right have been authoritatively settled by the U.S. Supreme Court: The Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” independent of service in an organized militia. That fact was unambiguously articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.

That decision, moreover, was based on the public understanding of the Second Amendment at the time it was ratified. In other words, not only was the Second Amendment an individual right as of 2008, it has always been an individual right. As the Supreme Court noted, “virtually all interpreters of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment interpreted the Amendment as we do.” It is false to suggest, as the California textbook does, that it originally meant something different and then somehow changed meaning in 2008.

Regarding the prefatory militia clause, the Supreme Court took pains to explain the difference between the justification for including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights and the scope and substance of that right.

“The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution,” the court wrote. What justified its codification was “the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms … .” But, the court noted, the prefatory militia clause announcing the reason for the right’s codification “does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.”

That scope, meanwhile, included using arms for “self-defense and hunting,” with self-defense being “the central component of the right itself,” according to the Supreme Court.

The California textbook also misconstrues what the term “militia” meant to the founding generation at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. It wasn’t just a discrete, organized military force, the court explained, but members of the population “physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” whether they were mustered in that capacity or not. Thus, the terms “militia” and “the people” are not at odds with each other in the Second Amendment. The people, with their own arms, are the basis of the militia. To protect the peoples’ private right to arms is therefore to protect the militia’s ability to muster with arms and to preserve its viability.

As for Congress’ ability to regulate the interstate sale of weapons, the Supreme Court indicated in Heller that “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” are part of the “longstanding” history and tradition of the Second Amendment, and are thus “presumptively lawful.” That does not mean, however, that every such law trumps the amendment’s protections, especially if there is no longstanding precedent for it.

In any event, the Supreme Court has yet to hear a case that pits the Second Amendment against the Commerce Clause, and it explicitly reserved that and other questions for later consideration. “[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field,” the court wrote. “[T]here will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.”

California likes to emphasize how it sees things differently than the rest of the United States. That’s why common consumer products come with warnings that they include substances “known to the State of California” to pose various hazards, including cancer or birth defects. So numerous are these warnings that people at this point are most likely to ignore them as sensational and unreliable.

The state’s students would be wise to take the same approach to official state pronouncements about firearms and the Second Amendment.

California, as the saying goes, is entitled to its opinions. But it’s not entitled to its own facts.

And when it comes to the Second Amendment, the facts are different than the opinions expressed in the California-specific version of McGraw-Hill’s social studies textbook.

Activist Wilma Mankiller is quoted as saying, “Whoever controls the education of our children controls our future.”

Year after year California chips away at the Second Amendment with its ever-expanding gun control regime.

If this continues unabated, the right to keep and bear arms will effectively be nullified for future generations of Californians.

What’s worse – if California’s educational bureaucrats have their way – is that those generations will be too ignorant of their liberties to even understand what has been taken from them.

Our advice to these students is to exercise their First Amendment rights to learn and speak the truth, and as soon as they are able, exercise the right to vote in favor of those who respect their fundamental liberties, rather than those who try to write them out of history.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sorry Shannon, But Those “Random Civilians” Are What Are Known As NRA Members

Another One Bites the Dust

Virginia Senate Passes Three Gun Control Bills – Committee Advances a Fourth

Sen. Daines Introduces Bill to Update Federal Protections for Lawful Transport of Unloaded Guns

Crime Data is Readily Available

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

PODCAST: ‘Pro-Life Is Pro-Woman’ — What to Expect From 2020 March for Life

/in , , , , , , , , /by

“Life Empowers: Pro-life Is Pro-Woman” is the theme of this year’s March for Life, set to take place Friday in the nation’s capital. Since 1974, the March for Life has gathered to remember the lives lost since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion, and to remind America that each life has value.

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, joins The Daily Signal Podcast to discuss what to expect at this year’s march and where the pro-life movement as a whole is headed in 2020. Listen to the podcast or read the lightly edited transcript below.

Virginia Allen: I am joined by the president of March for Life, Jeanne Mancini. Jeanne, thank you so much for being with me today.

Jeanne Mancini: Thanks so much for having me, Virginia.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Allen: Now, March for Life began in January of 1974, one year after the passage of Roe v. Wade. March for Life really started out just as a small, peaceful demonstration, but it quickly grew into the world’s largest pro-life event. The 2020 march is taking place on Jan. 24 in Washington, D.C. Can you share with us what the theme is that you all chose for this year’s march?

Mancini: I’d love to and if it’s OK, I’ll just give a little bit of backdrop that every year we do a lot of thinking and discerning about the appropriate theme because with the March for Life being the only place where all of the different pro-life groups come together annually, it’s an awesome springboard to message, essentially, about what we think are the most cutting edge, most pressing issues in building a culture of life.

Themes in past years have included adoption and nubile decision. Another year, in fact, last year, we had pro-life as pro-science and really delved into the science behind embryology and some of the wonderful neonatal surgeries available, etc.

This year our theme is “Life Empowers: Pro-Life Is Pro-Woman.” And, of course, this is the year where we celebrate the centennial anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which created a woman’s right to vote.

So it’s a great opportunity to go back and look at the suffragist, the early feminist, the early female leaders who recognize the inherent dignity of women and the inherent dignity of the unborn. We’re not at odds with each other and they had a really good understanding about that.

We’re having a lot of fun with this theme and we’re excited to be able to talk about that more next week.

Allen: Absolutely. Now, who is speaking at this year’s march?

Mancini: We’ve got a great, great, great lineup and stay tuned because there are more announcements to be made even tomorrow.

Legislatively, we will welcome to the stage Representative Chris Smith, as well as state Representative, state Senator, as of yesterday, Katrina Jackson.

Chris Smith is very well-known. He’s from New Jersey and just a stalwart on our issues.

Katrina Jackson as well is very interesting because she’s one of the few pro-life Democrats and, in particular, we’re so interested to have her this year because she was the author of the bill in Louisiana related to abortion clinic regulations that then became a law. And now will go before the Supreme Court in March. And so it’ll be very interesting to hear from Senator Jackson.

So those are some of our legislative speakers and there’s a few more to be there.

We have Claire Culwell and Melissa Ohden. They both have these incredibly inspiring stories. They both survived abortion, essentially. And their lives are such witnesses and so they’re going to share their stories. And, of course, we’ll link that very much to the born-alive discharge petition in the House.

Right now we’ve got Jim Daly from Focus on the Family, Marjorie Dannenfelser, head of Susan B. Anthony List—a good year for Marjorie to speak with the theme. Another wonderful woman, she’s a pro-life leader in New Mexico, Lisa Martinez.

We also have a local pastor, David Platt from McLean Bible Church, a very well-known church here in the D.C. area. He will be doing our closing prayer.

And, like I said, we’ve got a few more announcements. And I should say our favorite speaker, at least when we do our surveys after the March for Life, is almost always the young person that speaks because, of course, by and large the participants in the March for Life are young people.

Our one specific designated young person who’s speaking this year is Catalina Scheider Galiñanes. And she is from Oakcrest, a school in Vienna, Virginia. She’s going to speak about why she’s pro-life.

Allen: Wow. So many amazing speakers. I really look forward myself to hearing many of them at the event on the 24th.

People come to March for Life in Washington, D.C., from states all across America. What is that message or motivation that you are really hoping that marchers will take with them back to their home states and their communities?

Mancini: The March for Life is very interesting in that it’s a place to come and witness and testify to the beautiful inherent dignity of the unborn person. And yet, ironically, for those of us who participate in the march every year, it’s an opportunity for our own hearts and minds to be changed even more about this issue.

I’ll just give you a quick example of that … I know I’m kind of backing my way into the answer here, but I had a family member come and participate from out West last year and it was the first time he had come and he’s always been pro-life, but it was quite a sacrifice to come.

He and his wife and one of his children came and had a really beautiful time. I think … his eyes were opened to the significance of the issue and perhaps his heart was changed even more in the direction of life.

And while he had a very busy schedule last year with having kind of a … I guess you could say a break from work for a few months as he was changing to a new job. This year, he’s again coming because he realized how important it is and it’s like, again, his own experience was changed and he wants to do more in his local community.

So what I would say is that the March for Life, again, while it’s a moment to testify and to give witness in the public square about the unborn, it also changes our own hearts.

Our deepest hope as those of us who pull this event together is that marchers go back home and make a difference in their local community. Because if it’s just one day that we’re coming together and are really [having a] motivating and exciting day, then we’re not doing our job. The job is really recognizing that we each have a role to play in building a culture of life and to do that in the area where we are planted.

Allen: Speaking of working in that area where you’re planted, you all have also launched a number of marches across America in different cities. Why did you feel that it was important to not just have the national march but also to have marches in states across America?

Mancini: Well, a few years ago as a pro-life organization in D.C,. we found that we were being tapped to do all things and there was a bit of … mission creep even within the organization, not terribly so, but it allowed for some reflection.

After some time I think we were all a little bit burned out and it gave us an opportunity to really look interiorly as well as look up to God and really think about why was the March created and what do we bring to the pro-life movement and to building a culture of life that no other pro-life group brings.

So, what can we do better and more of to end abortion, to change hearts and minds so that abortion is unthinkable in our country? And simultaneously, if you were to ask us, “What is the single thing that you get the most calls about or the most questions about?” It was to help groups start marches in their states and in their local areas.

We didn’t really have the bandwidth to do that well. I mean, we had sort of a very informal toolkit and we take calls and try to give technical assistance, but for the most part, we weren’t really staffed up to be able to help groups do that in a powerful way. So all of that led to a lot of soul-searching and deep discernment with the board.

We decided to try as a beta test, a state march program. So our first state march was in Virginia last year and it was in April and we brought out over 7,000 people for it. And we’re the lead story on the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which is the local Richmond paper. And for so many reasons, it was a huge success and we didn’t quite anticipate that it would be as big of a success as it was.

So this year we’ll have a second march in Virginia on Feb. 13. We’ll also have a march in Pennsylvania. That’s on May 18. And a march in Hartford, Connecticut, on April 15. Stay tuned for more announcements.

Allen: That’s so exciting. I do want to take just a moment to ask you to share a little bit about your own pro-life journey and how you got connected with March for Life.

Mancini: Oh, well, thank you for asking that. Well, let’s see. I grew up in a Catholic family and social justice and just understanding human dignity was something that was ingrained in my understanding of life and the most important things of life. …

I was 1 of 5. So we loved life, my family, and definitely lived in a way that was very respectful of life. …

After college, I did a volunteer corps, I did something called the Jesuit Volunteer Corps. I worked with young people that were in a crisis setting. They were in a youth crisis shelter.

They were being moved either from a situation that wasn’t safe for them to be in or they’d been found on the streets. And there was a long-term search for more of a permanent home, whether that was going to be foster care or a residential treatment center or what have you.

So my time working with those young people was very informative and I grappled a lot with the deeper questions about would it be better if some of these lives hadn’t been born? Is it unfair to bring some lives into the world when there’s such a difficult scenario and such heavy crosses that these people carry that nobody’s ever really meant to carry?

Anyways, I did a lot of sort of introspection and I came out on the other side really recognizing that every life is a gift. And I guess realizing with humility, who am I to judge the value of someone’s life because they’ve had some hard things happen to them?

And then along the way I’ve had different experiences, obviously, in life. For certain one experience [that] weighs heavily on my heart is two people very close to me when I was in college decided to have an abortion and they didn’t tell me before, they told me after. And then in some cases it was a long time after.

Just hearing the pain that they underwent was so sad and even this terrible guilt that they were experiencing. Of course, there’s always hope and healing.

And I should say that to anyone listening to your podcast, anyone who’s been involved in abortion, there’s so many wonderful groups and people to speak with to find hope and healing after having been involved in abortion.

But I just realized personally through these people who were close to me that women deserve so much better than abortion.

It was just a lived experience of what I’d always believed but I thought in a very sad reality in these situations. So, along the way there have been many different I guess you could say epiphanies throughout my life.

And you asked how I ended up getting to the March for Life. So this is a very long-winded way of answering that. But I guess about 10 or 11 years ago, I was working with Family Research Council and I was their pro-life spokesperson and just loved that job. It was so fun and I got to do a lot of policy analysis, which is really what I love to do.

So, a few years into that job, I was asked to join the board of the March for Life. And I did expecting just to be a board member for a period of time. But I never really made it to my first board meeting without a major happening. And that was that the founder of the March for Life, Nellie Gray, passed away before I went to my first board meeting.

So my first board meeting was an emergency board meeting where we were coming up with a plan for how we were going to continue the march.

In a short-term capacity, I and another board member, Patrick Kelly, took on the leadership and we thought we’d we had our plans for how that was going to happen and here I am seven and a half years later, still working with the March for Life. And lots has changed over that time. But it’s just been a big blessing.

Allen: Certainly. That’s so neat just to hear that background and your story and kind of see how all those pieces came together. It’s really, really neat.

Mancini: Thank you.

Allen: Increasingly, unfortunately, we are seeing an attitude among the pro-choice movement. It is really not only pro-abortion but advocates flaunting abortion. And you know, we see this through the Shout Your Abortion movement, examples like actress Michelle Williams during her award acceptance speech at the Golden Globes. We could go on and on, but what should the response of pro-lifers be to this really blatantly pro-abortion rhetoric?

Mancini: I think a couple things. One is to just have great confidence in what we believe. So, to remember that reality is not arbitrary and that calling something a certain name or saying that something shouldn’t have stigma or shame or what have you doesn’t make it so.

Abortion—whatever you’re going to call it, if you’re going to shout it, if you’re going to tell your story about it, etc.—always takes the life of one and most frequently wounds the life of another. So calling it something different doesn’t change that reality.

So I think just to A, recognize that. And then B—this might sound a little counterintuitive based on what I just said—to take a very merciful approach.

I mean, look, we are in a culture of what I would describe as the walking wounded because so many women and men have been involved in abortion and that very much impacts their response to these kinds of things. There’s so much woundedness around it. And so I think approaching any conversations about this topic with a lot of mercy and love and tenderness is critical.

And … I feel that we don’t ever have to twist someone’s arm behind their back to agree with us because we should have so much confidence.

Life is inherently beautiful and the pro-life message is so positive and attractive. So we really just need to show it for what it is instead of twisting someone’s arm behind their back if they don’t agree with us.

Conversely, the more that we understand about the abortion industry and even abortion procedures, it’s dark. I mean, it’s really, really dark. So to the extent that we can show that reality for what it is as well, and certainly try to prevent people from any kind of pain and loss of life. I think that’s important too.

Allen: President [Donald] Trump is often referred to as the most pro-life president in history. Looking back at his first three years in office, what, to you, are some of the most notable pro-life victories of his administration?

Mancini: Oh, that’s a great question. In terms of really creating pro-life policy, I would agree he has done more for the pro-life movement than any president when it comes to enacting policy.

Because of my job, I have to just start by talking about the March for Life. Prior to the Trump administration, we never had a president or vice president of the United States come to the march. In fact, a speech writer once told me, and this was a former speech writer, that presidents were counseled to go to Camp David around the time of the March for Life because they didn’t want to be photoed with some graphic images or something like that.

So … there’s almost been a real fear at top levels to associate with something this important. And we’ve seen the opposite from this White House. And it’s been incredible.

I will never, ever, ever forget one week after being inaugurated, there was the vice president in person at the March for Life and Kellyanne Conway, who ran a successful campaign. And that was, again, the first time.

It was a historic moment because it was the first time ever in the history of a March [for Life] that a standing vice president had come and spoken in person.

Then the following year, President Trump addressed the marchers about a mile away from the rally. So he was in the Rose Garden and there were a couple hundred young people there in the Rose Garden with him on big jumbotrons at the rally’s site. We broadcast that live and that was very exciting.

Last year, again, we had Mrs. [Karen] Pence and the vice president. So it’s just been incredible to have that level of support from the administration.

But in terms of amazing policies that they’ve enacted—gosh, there’s been so much. One of my personal favorites is the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy that had been formerly called the Mexico City policy, but that’s been reinstated and broadened.

Another favorite, of course, would be Supreme Court appointments, nominations and confirmations of both Justice [Neil] Gorsuch and [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh.

And then all of the excellent judicial nominations that are going to be at the appeals court and the district court, I think there have been over 218 of those. I don’t have the number right in front of me, but it’s high.

Returning Title 10 funding decisions to the state, launching an investigation into Planned Parenthood. I mean, again and again, there have been so many really, really great things.

Allen: Yeah. And just earlier this month, over 200 members of Congress signed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.

Of course, like you mentioned, we’ve seen all of these great new policies and legislation come out of the Trump administration. Also … 2019 did see some really devastating pro-choice legislation pushed forward. So what do you think we can expect in 2020?

Mancini: That’s a great question. Well, I think that some of the things that we need to think about are, first of all, the election. And the March for Life doesn’t endorse candidates, but we do educate. And I think that elections matter.

I know having worked in the Office of the Secretary at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] and seeing all of the policies change—I was there during the Bush administration and then in the beginning of the Obama administration—I just have to say the pro-life vote makes such a difference.

So, elections matter and to prepare well for the election ahead because it’s going to be a big year. That’s one thing.

I know that something that we are very much focusing on at the March for Life this year is the born-alive discharge petition and just the born-alive troops.

You mentioned that there have been so many extreme laws enacted at the state, though. Of course, Illinois now passed the Reproductive Act, which makes it sort of the most pro-abortion state in our country. New York, of course, did last year. Vermont passed another similar law.

Essentially, it’s just so critical that we’re aware of these kinds of things and that we do as much as we possibly can to message on the truth about things like the born-alive discharge petition or born-alive bills at the level of the state by the ERA, etc., etc. …

You asked the question and it’s a little hard to know [what to expect this year]. The elections are in front of us. We have a mixed Senate and House, so it’s hard to pass the federal legislation right now. And then in the states there’s all sorts of different things happening.

So to fight the extreme stuff, especially in places like Virginia, my own home state, and we’re seeing the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment] is going to get voted on soon there, but to continue as much as we possibly can to pass good pro-life legislation, for example, the Born-Alive [Abortion Survivors Protection] Act, which any person with common sense would agree with.

Allen: And you recently co-authored a commentary for The Daily Signal titled “Early Feminists Were Right About Unborn Human Life.” Can you tell us a little bit more about these American suffragists?

Mancini: I would love to. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t think that there is even one suffragist who was pro-abortion.

So we’ve got some fantastic quotes from, for example, Alice Paul, who called abortion the ultimate exploitation of women. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was very strong in her views on this. Of course, Susan B. Anthony, etc.

But these early female pioneers, again, knew that a woman’s capacity for fertility and motherhood wasn’t a liability, but that it was a beautiful thing. I think they saw men and women as being equal in dignity but different not having to do away with the part of them that can make them mothers.

So it’s wonderful to look back and to see sort of this first wave of feminists and where they were coming from and their understanding of these kinds of issues. And then to see sort of where things are today and how far we’ve gotten from that.

For any of your listeners who have an interest in that, I cannot highly recommend enough coming to our conference the day before the March for Life.

Our keynote is one of my favorite speakers, especially on this topic. Erika Bachiochi—she’s a pro-life feminist and a legal scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. And she’s got so much to say about this and herself has a tremendous testimony and story of coming from a more pro-abortion feminist perspective to where she is today.

And then we have a stellar lineup of panelists, very much speaking to different nuances about this. Sue Ellen Browder will be speaking, she’s an author, she wrote a wonderful book called “Subverted.” Now she’s got a book coming out called “Sex and the Catholic Feminist.” She’s essentially going to go into this question that you just asked me, what the early suffragettes said and a history of that. She’ll read quotes and papers, etc.

We also have Christina Francis, OB-GYN, who’s the chairman of the board of AAPLOG, the American Association of Pro-life OB-GYNs, and she’s going to talk about the consequences of abortion and especially the physiological consequences.

We also have Mary McCluskey, who works with Project Rachel Ministry on helping women and men who regret having been involved in abortion. And then Brandi Swindell, who’s the founder and CEO of Stanton Healthcare—named after Elizabeth Cady Stanton, of course, an early suffragist.

So I highly recommend coming in and hearing about our theme.

Allen: And how can our listeners find out more about the march that’s happening in D.C. and then the state marches that are going to be taking place throughout this year?

Mancini: Well, follow us on all of our different mediums on social media, and check us out particularly on our website at marchforlife.org, and you can count down the hours, like you mentioned, Virginia, right at the beginning.

Allen: Yeah. Thank you so much, Jeanne. We just really appreciate your time.

Mancini: Thanks for having me. It’s been a pleasure.

PODCAST BY

Virginia Allen

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Donald Trump to attend March for Life on Friday

President Donald Trump Declares January 22nd “National Sanctity of Human Life Day”

Problematic Women: Teen Vogue Shouts the Merits of Abortion

Faith, Family, Football: Why Patriots Tight End Benjamin Watson Champions Life

‘Birth Mommy’: Why This Woman Gave Her Child Up for Adoption

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

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

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

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

PODCAST: Dershowitz lays out a defense of Trump and more . . .

/in , , , , , , /by

GUESTS AND TOPICS

ADAM ANDRZEJEWSKI

Adam Andrzejewski CEO & Founder of OpenTheBooks.com the world’s largest private database of government spending. Adam is a senior contributor at Forbes Opinion and frequent radio and tv opinion commenter.

Topic: California’s High Tech Debacle

REAGAN MCCARTHY

Reagan McCarthy is the Web Editor at Townhall.com and an alumna of The Pennsylvania State University where she studied Political Science and Broadcast Journalism. While at Penn State Reagan served as the President of the Penn State College Republicans and the Executive Director for the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans. Raegan’s articles have also been published by the Washington Examiner.

TOPIC: Court Throws Out Climate Change Lawsuit

ANN STONE

Ann Stone has worked in over 500 campaigns as everything from precinct worker to campaign manager. Most of her work has been in political organizing, public advocacy, communications, strategy and fundraising. In 1992 she was chosen as one of the Women Who Changed Politics in America by Campaigns and Elections Magazine. In 2012 she was named as one of the 21 Leaders for the Twenty First Century by Women’s eNews. Ann has appeared on numerous television programs ranging from Good Morning America, the Today Show, Nightline, Larry King, PBS News Hour, To The Contrary, a variety of shows on CNN to shows like Comedy Central, MTV and Politically Incorrect.

TOPIC: Alan Dershowitz lays out a defense of Trump

120 Members of Congress Send Letters of Support to Hamas-Linked Group

/in , , , , /by

My latest in PJ Media:

You’d think that a group with multiple ties to the jihad terror group Hamas would be shunned by elected American representatives, and even more by law enforcement officials, except insofar as it was under investigation. You’d think wrong. The Washington Free Beacon reported Thursday that despite the “more than 120 members of Congress privately issued letters of support to a controversial Islamic-American advocacy group known for its involvement in one of America’s most prominent terrorism financing cases.” And on Friday, the Daily Wire added that “in October, the Trump administration handed out $100,000 of taxpayer dollars to the terror-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).”

You’d almost think that CAIR was a patriotic organization fighting against jihad terror. But of course virtually all members of Congress and federal bureaucrats in DHS wouldn’t be caught dead having anything to do with such a group. CAIR, on the other hand, “touted its support among congressional leaders during its 2019 gala conference in November in Washington, D.C.,” where the headliners included the notable flag-wavers Linda Sarsour and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). Its agenda included “well over 100 letters from Democratic and Republican members of Congress, all of whom expressed their support for the controversial organization. Democrats issued the majority of the letters, with only two coming from Republican members of Congress.”

Those sending their good wishes to this sinister and unsavory organization included three presidential hopefuls, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Cherokee Nation) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Flying Binders), as well as Tom Steyer (D-Rich Guy with No Chance), along with stalwart Democratic pillars including Adam Schiff (D-Impeachment Railroad) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Hizballah).

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Number of Salafists in Germany Reaches Record High, Says Intel Agency

Jerusalem: Muslims chant about killing Jews outside the Al-Aqsa Mosque

France: Nearly 20% of newborns have Muslim or Arabic first names

RELATED VIDEO: Muslim cleric: “By means of caliphate…your conquest, oh Rome, is a matter of certainty. Allahu akbar!”

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

VIDEO: The Vortex — McCarrick Dead? An ‘anonymous’ source says so.

/in , , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

Is Theodore McCarrick dead? Church Militant yesterday received an anonymous letter with a New Jersey postmark on it stating just that.

First, here is the letter, in its entirety:

Church Militant
2840 Hilton Rd.
Ferndale, MI 48220

Here is a tip of the day for you. You have been played for fools by the bishops of Florida and elsewhere. Theodore McCarrick died on Tuesday, October 15, 2019. You are trying to locate him! He is in a cemetery in Hays, KS. He is buried under a modified name.

All this happened with little or no notice from the media. This is news known to a few. Break it. Or disregard it altogether. You are wasting your time in Florida. Who did the funeral prayers? The most liberal bishop in the far southwest of the US, known for its fine weather… October 18. Some of us were there.

An involved reader

First, Church Militant receives all sorts of tips on all sorts of stories. Until we can verify them, we would never report them. And for the record, we are not reporting that McCarrick is dead and has been secretly buried in Hays, Kansas.

After thoroughly checking every possible angle and source on this we can report, it appears to be not true, even in the slightest. Some of the timeline in the letter doesn’t seem to correspond with on-the-record information.

For example, the Fidelis Friary in Victoria, Kansas where McCarrick was last known to have lived reported to media that he had left around Christmas time on his own and that they are not responsible for tracking his whereabouts. Obviously he couldn’t have left at Christmas if he was already in a grave two months prior.

So the letter is wrong, or the friary is lying — but we’re not sure why the friary would lie.

Likewise, again after thorough vetting with various officials and funeral homes and cemeteries, and police and public records, and medical examiners, etc., nothing has been discovered by us that would suggest this letter has a shred of truth to it.

So why are we telling you about it?

A couple of reasons. First, to show how someone or someones might be trying to steer the McCarrick story from behind the scenes and influence coverage. Interest in this story is intense and intensifies every day that passes that the Vatican does not release its investigation.

McCarrick remains — to this day — an enigma, and no one in the hierarchy has come forward publicly to reveal what they know about his lifelong evils, in which many of them were participants.

It would be unthinkable that various members of the McCarrick inner circle would not want to know where he is in case he would come forward and spill the beans on them.

It’s safe to say that some would, in fact, prefer that he be dead and take his secrets to the grave. Others might even assist him to an early grave.

McCarrick was at the center of decades of crimes and cover-ups on a gigantic scale, and not a few prelates know that McCarrick knows.

The second reason we are telling you about this anonymous letter is the damage that this kind of news — if and when it begins to circulate — could inflict on McCarrick’s surviving victims.

Imagine for a moment that this homopredator had entrapped you in his snare for months or years. You are suffering the silent agony of his predation and are reminded of it even more pointedly now as news of his whereabouts and the Vatican’s delay keep making headlines.

There’s something a bit twisted about not feeling any sympathy for the survivors of this former cardinal who molested and abused countless boys and young men.

And there’s something further twisted about wanting to deliberately spread disinformation about one of the most closely followed stories in the Church — where loads of people have an intense interest in wanting the full truth to come out, and many others have an equally intense interest in keeping that truth from ever being revealed.

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

New SF DA, Son of Terrorists, Fires Anti-Gang Prosecutors

/in , , , , , /by

Newly-installed San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin fired seven key felony prosecutors last Friday despite campaign promises to clean up violent crime in the city, according to Breitbart News.

“It should not come as a surprise to anybody that a newly-elected official would want to make staff changes,” said Boudin, who had run specifically against adding “gang enhancements” to prosecutions, arguing that they disproportionately affected minority defendants. He had also campaigned against prosecuting “quality-of-life” crimes such as public urination, and said he would “decriminalize” homelessness.

One of the fired attorneys said, “I think the impact on morale is going to be devastating.”

Boudin, the son of two Weather Underground terrorists, is a proud socialist who wants to imprison ICE agents and who claims that the American criminal justice system is utterly racist. In San Francisco, that makes you a shoo-in for public office.

Chesa Boudin

17 Known Connections

Boudin’s campaign for DA was vigorously endorsed by such notables as Angela Davis, Linda Sarsour, Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King, the radical Chicago District Attorney Kim Foxx, and Senator Bernie Sanders. When Boudin was elected in November 2019, Sanders tweeted: “Now is the moment to fundamentally transform our racist and broken criminal justice system by ending mass incarceration, the failed war on drugs and the criminalization of poverty. Congratulations @chesaboudin on your historic victory!”

Boudin says he is “proud” to identify openly as a socialist: “When we were kids, socialism was a bad word associated with dictatorships. What we’ve seen over the last five or so years, in large part thanks to Bernie Sanders and all the grassroots organizing that’s gone into making him a national political leader, is that socialism has become something that even mainstream progressives identify with. It means things like universal health care, quality public education for everyone, great housing for everyone.”

To learn more, click on the profile link here.

Search our constantly growing database of the left and its Agendas.

RELATED ARTICLE: San Francisco DA Touts Progressive Ambitions for Already Troubled City

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Florida REPUBLICAN Senators Vote for Massive Gun Control Bill

/in , , , , , /by

On Monday, 1/13/20, it happened again.  Senate President Bill Galvano picked a fight with Floridians who believe in the constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It is well known — even by the media — that in 2018 Bill Galvano orchestrated the creation and passage of the “Parkland Gun Control Bill.”  And, of course, it didn’t stop gun crime or criminals.  It only took away rights of law-abiding people.

So now, he’s back for more gun control and it appears likely that Bloomberg’s $500,000.00 “donation” to Senate President Bill Galvano is behind yet another Galvano gun control bill — SB-7028 – an admitted priority of Galvano.

All but one of the Republican Senators on the Senate Infrastructure and Security Committee put Galvano’s wishes ahead of principle, the Constitution, their Oath of Office and YOU, their constituents, and voted for a gun control bill.

FORGET that some of them were not truthful with NRA and Unified Sportsmen of Florida about supporting the Second Amendment.  REMEMBER, they KNOW gun control doesn’t work.  They know that only law-abiding people obey the law and criminals don’t care what the law says.

When RINOs (Republican In Name Only) vote like Anti-gun Democrats, one has to wonder how many real Republicans are left in the Florida Senate.

If Senate Republicans, who vote for gun control, don’t care about compromising their own integrity, you have to wonder if they care about what they are doing to the character the Republican Party?

Michael Bloomberg is no friend to Republicans!  He’s running in the Democratic Primary for President of the US on an anti-gun platform. Why are Senate Republicans doing his bidding?

You can ask them:

Tom Lee            850-487-5020    Lee.Tom@flsenate.gov
Keith Perry        850-487-5008    Perry.Keith@flsenate.gov
Ed Hooper         850-487-5016    Hooper.Ed@flsenate.gov
Travis Hutson    850-487-5007    Hutson.Travis@flsente.gov

***IMPORTANT NEW DEVELOPMENT***

The media is now reporting that House Speaker Jose Oliva and Governor Ron DeSantis are pushing back against this massive gun control bill.   Speaker Oliva and Governor DeSantis are to be commended for working to protect Second Amendment rights.  They KNOW gun control doesn’t stop crime or criminals.

BACKGROUND:

SB-7028 by the Committee on Infrastructure & Security is a gun control bill. Among other things, it contains a massive two-pronged “Universal” Background Check system that is the worst I have ever seen.

It is clearly meant to simply ban all private sales of firearms through red tape and fear.

This bill contains so much red tape and nonsense that there is almost no way a law-abiding person could comply.

The only thing we know for sure is that this bill will only stop law-abiding people from exercising a constitutional right and it will be completely ignored by criminals.

Voting in favor of this bill is like a doctor giving a patient an antibiotic for a virus.  The doctor knows an antibiotic won’t cure the illness but at least he can make people think he’s “doing something.”

Supporting a bill so you can say you’re doing something is “political eyewash.”

This bill is nothing less than GUN CONTROL ON STEROIDS.

Any person of SOUND MIND knows that only law-abiding people obey the law and that criminals don’t care what the law says.

Make no mistake, 4 Senators who claim to be Republicans voted for massive gun control:  Not to uphold their oath of office; not to protect and defend the Constitution; not to represent the rights of law-abiding gun owners in their districts.

The article below is reprinted with permission.

SENATE PANEL BACKS GUN CONTROL MEASURE

January 13, 2020
Dara Kam

TALLAHASSEE — Over the objections of the National Rifle Association, a Senate panel Monday unanimously signed off on a far-reaching measure that would close the gun-show “loophole,” create a record-keeping system for private gun sales and set aside $5 million to establish a “statewide strategy for violence prevention.”

The proposal (SB 7028) is a priority of Senate President Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, as evidenced by the Senate Infrastructure and Security Committee’s consideration and passage of the measure the day before the 2020 legislative session begins.

The sweeping legislation would require background checks and a three-day waiting period for firearms sold “on property to which the public has the right of access,” such as “a flea market, a gun show, or a firearm exhibit.”

The measure would also mandate that guns be securely stored in households and other places where minors under age 18 — up from the current threshold of 16 — could have access to the weapons.

The bill also would create a new section of law that would require guns to be stored to prevent access “by a person of unsound mind.”

And the proposal would impose new requirements for private gun sales. Under the measure, individuals who sell guns to other people would be required to fill out a form that would include the name, date of birth and identification information of the purchaser. The affidavit, which would include background questions aimed at ensuring the purchaser is eligible to buy a gun, would have to be notarized.

The measure contains “the worst universal background check language I have ever seen,” Marion Hammer, the NRA’s Florida lobbyist and a former president of the national gun-rights organization, told the Senate panel.

“It appears to be an actual attempt to ban private sales through red tape and fear,” she said.  “Asking average citizens to create what amounts to a government form and get it notarized is ridiculous.”

The legislation is “nothing less than gun control on steroids,” Hammer said.

But committee Chairman Tom Lee, R-Thonotosassa, said the legislation “just makes sense.”

The Senate’s proposal comes as mass shootings in Florida and throughout the nation continue to rise. At least 81 people have died in mass shootings scattered throughout Florida over the past three years.

In 2018, the Legislature for the first time in decades passed a handful of gun-control measures after a massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland that killed 17 students and faculty members and injured 17 others.

Lee, a former Senate president, said he empathized with gun owners who are exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“I know that you don’t see NRA members in the headlines of these mass shootings,” he told reporters following Monday’s meeting.  “But we have a job to do. We can’t just sit by idly while our children are killing children and pretend this isn’t happening.”

While the Senate measure is a Galvano priority, it lacks a companion measure in the House. Lee said House leaders are “well aware we’re working on this.”

“Frankly, a lot of this is going to happen president-to-speaker and work down from there. But they’re very well aware that this is a priority for the president,” he said.

PROMISE KEPT: President Trump signs landmark phase 1 deal with China

/in , , , , , /by

In a historic moment, President Donald J. Trump was joined today by the Vice Premier of China in the East Room of the White House. Together, they signed a new, fully enforceable trade agreement that rebalances this vital trade partnership while boosting American businesses, farmers, manufacturers, and innovators.

“From day one, my Administration has fought tirelessly to achieve a level playing field for the American worker,” President Trump said. Before he took office, Washington had long tolerated unfair trade practices that buoyed special interests while hurting U.S. working- and middle-class families.

President Trump: I’m putting the American people first!

“For years, politicians ran for office promising action to remedy these practices, only to do nothing but allow them to continue,” the President said this morning. “Unlike those who came before me, I kept my promise . . . Now, our efforts have yielded a transformative deal that will bring tremendous benefits to both countries.”

The new agreement makes good on a number of key promises to fix trade with China:

  • American-made products: To help rebalance the relationship, China has pledged to increase imports of American goods and services by at least $200 billion.
  • Agriculture purchases: As part of that commitment, China will be stocking up on goods from U.S. farmers—between $40 and $50 billion worth.
  • No more forced technology transfers: For the first time ever, China agreed to end its practice of forcing American companies to transfer their technology to Chinese companies as a condition for doing business there.
  • Fair currency practices: Beijing has agreed to stronger commitments on its practices regarding currency devaluations and exchange rates.

And that’s just phase one. The work on a phase-two deal is already underway.

“With this signing, we mark more than just an agreement. We mark a sea change in international trade. At long last, Americans have a government that puts them first at the negotiating table,” President Trump said.

A stronger America, of course, doesn’t come at the rest of the globe’s expense. On the contrary, when the United States is thriving, it makes the world a safer, more stable place. A better and fairer trade partnership with China will do much of the same.

Starting today, a new era of harmony, prosperity, and commerce officially begins.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds explains what this deal means for rural America

President Trump: China will be buying A LOT of these American goods

The Perpetual Intersectional Revolution Eats Its Own

/in , , , , , /by

In 2008, Democrats nominated for president a first-term U.S. senator with no serious legislative experience, Barack Obama. They nominated him over the long-championed, long-celebrated presumptive heir apparent to the Democratic leadership, Hillary Clinton. Obama was, of course, the first black Democratic nominee, and he would be the first black president.

Yet in 2020, 12 years later, we have been informed by the media that Democrats are ensconced in racism anew. Why? First, because Democrats refused to activate in support of awkwardly robotic Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who is black; second, because Democrats refused to activate in support of wild-eyed former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, who is Latino; and now because Democrats refused to activate in support of scenery-chewing Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who is black.

Democrats have been accused by the media of having ignored their initially diverse field in favor of old, white candidates (amusingly, the media only noticed that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was, indeed, an old white person when actual people of color were booted from the race).

It appears that the memory of Obama—not yet four years old—is not enough to insulate Democrats from charges of discrimination.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

Then there’s Hollywood.

In 2014, African actress Lupita Nyong’o won an Oscar for her supporting role in “12 Years a Slave.” In 2018, director Greta Gerwig was nominated for a best director Oscar for “Lady Bird.” Yet this week, we found out that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had neglected—horror of horrors!— to nominate both Nyong’o, for her role in the extraordinarily overrated horror flick “Us,” and Gerwig, for her direction of “Little Women.”

These oversights, we were solemnly informed, evidenced the Academy’s deep-seated bias in favor of white men. Never mind that Cynthia Erivo was nominated for best actress for her role as Harriet Tubman in “Harriet.” Discrimination was alive and well in Hollywood.

It must be difficult to live in an environment in which every day is a perpetual test of one’s submission to the Woke Police. It must be difficult to know that no past act stands in favor of the accused—that each day must be lived fresh—and that all past omissions stand against the accused. But the intersectional revolution requires continual struggle, and continual sacrifice.

In Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon,” communist lackey Rubashov is jailed and charged—of what crime, it does not matter. The Soviet Union is purging members of the older generation, and Rubashov is told that he must confess in order to uphold the sanctity of his own cause. Eventually, Rubashov does exactly that.

“There is nothing for which one could die, if one died without having repented and unreconciled with the Party and the Movement,” Rubashov says in his confession. “Therefore, on the threshold of my last hour, I bend my knees to the country, to the masses and to the whole people.”

The choice between dying honestly, in repudiation of his own cause, was simply too much.

In the end, all revolutionaries will have to determine whether they, too, will bow before the cause—even if they go unjustly to the guillotine. Because there is one basic rule of radical revolutions: Those who are first to launch them are often just slightly delayed in feeling their wrath.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro is host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.” He is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, and lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Congress’ Animosity for Trump Is a National Security Hazard

Parents Challenge ‘Radical’ LGBT Curriculum in New Jersey Schools

Michigan May Add ‘Nonbinary’ Driver’s License Option

A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

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

GET ACCESS NOW! >>

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

Go to Church, Live Longer and Happier

/in , , , , , , /by

I don’t go to church to live longer or to be happier. I go because I am commanded to go by the Bible (Hebrews 10:25). But study after study shows that those who actively go to church generally do live longer and happier lives.

I go to church because 2,000 years ago, the Founder of the Church walked out of His own tomb. He was dead on Friday, and then He became alive on Sunday morning. If you have an open mind, you can even see that He left a virtual photograph behind.

Furthermore, the followers of Jesus were crushed and demoralized by His very public death. They cowered in fear, and then they became bold and unstoppable and went to the ends of the earth proclaiming His death for the salvation of those who believe. What changed them? His resurrection from the dead.

Every Sunday morning is a weekly reminder throughout much of the whole world of His historical resurrection from the dead.

That is why people from every continent, nation, race, and tongue gather together then to worship Him the world over.

We don’t worship Him for pragmatic reasons, but in the Providence of God, longer, more satisfying lives are often a by-product of active church-going—so notes study after study.

On January 10, 2020, an Australian-born minister, Glen Scrivener, had a discussion with an American atheist, Matt Dillahunty, on a British-based online series called “The Big Conversation.”

Scrivener said, “There is a tremendous amount of public benefit for religions to flourish in societies. Those people thrive in a world where, if the government were able to put a magic elixir into the water that could deliver those benefits—longer life, happier, healthier, societies, all of these things have been demonstrated in thousands of studies—it would make society better.”

The atheist did not totally disagree, but he countered: “The truth has to do with who we are and it maybe is the case that what people need is the community which religions have done a really good job of building, and it’s one of the things that secular organizations are working towards doing now, building stronger communities.”

Meanwhile, just a little online searching shows that it is a consistent finding that attending church tends to cause people to live longer and healthier lives.

TIME Magazine said (2/15, 2018):

“If a long life is what you’re after, going to church may be the answer to your prayers.”

Harvard Professor Tyler J. VanderWeele noted:

“Over the last 20 years, research has gradually accumulated suggesting that religious service attendance is associated with better physical and mental health.”

For example, a study published a few years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded:

“Frequent attendance at religious services was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality among women. Religion and spirituality may be an underappreciated resource that physicians could explore with their patients, as appropriate.”

They also noted that an overall look at “studies on the connection between attendance at religious services and mortality between 1994 and 2009 concluded that religious service attendance helped reduce mortality by 18% in healthy populations.”

The New York Times (6/12/2016) adds more details of this particular long-term research project involving 75,534 women: “After controlling for more than two dozen factors, they found that compared with those who never went to church, going more than once a week was associated with a 33 percent lower risk for death from any cause, attending once a week with a 26 percent lower risk, and going less than once a week a 13 percent lowered risk. Risks for mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer followed a similar pattern.”

The more often you go to church, the more healthy you tend to be.

These findings are consistent. About 15 years ago, I interviewed Dr. Byron Johnson, now of Baylor, then of the University of Pennsylvania, about the impact of church-going on people’s lives.

Said Johnson: “There is research now that seems to indicate faith does add to lifestyle and satisfaction…..So we reviewed over 770 studies, on religion, to see what the impact was. Every study that we could find. And that’s when we came up with the conclusion that about 85 percent have a beneficial effect….People of faith report higher levels of satisfaction, higher levels of hope and meaning, purpose in their lives than their counterparts who don’t have that same kind of commitment.”

And he added this amazing statistic: “We have serious research that indicates regular church attendance can add as much as seven years to longevity for white Americans and 14 years for African-Americans.”

To me going to church is its own reward. But how nice to see it is also good for me.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Faith, Family, Football: Why Patriots Tight End Benjamin Watson Champions Life

North Korean Christian Martyr: ‘Even If I Die, I Do Not Have Any Regrets’

Trump in Farsi: “Instead of dragging Iran to ruin, Iran’s leaders must put aside the terrorists”

/in , , , , , , /by

Remove Trump from office! He is daring to challenge the Left’s favorite world leader!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1218309736594116608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1218309736594116608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jihadwatch.org%2F2020%2F01%2Ftrump-in-farsi-instead-of-dragging-iran-to-ruin-irans-leaders-must-put-aside-the-terrorists

“‘Put aside the terrorists’: Trump responds to Khamenei in Farsi,” by Zachary Halaschak, Washington Examiner, January 17, 2020:

Trump responded to a tweet Khamenei sent out on Friday, the same day that he gave his first public sermon in eight years. The 80-year-old leader tweeted that America was “villainous” and accused the United States of wanting to stab the Iranian people “in the heart.”

Trump, writing in Farsi, responded, “The noble people of Iran, who love America, deserve a government that will help them achieve their dreams, rather than focusing on killing them for revenge. Instead of dragging Iran to ruin, Iran’s leaders must put aside the terrorists and magnify Iran again!”

Trump previously tweeted in Farsi, which became the most-liked tweet in that language. The tweet racked up more than 370,000 likes.

“To the brave and suffering Iranian people: I have stood with you since the beginning of my presidency, and my government will continue to stand with you. We are following your protests closely. Your courage is inspiring,” he said last week.

Friday’s tweet earned more than 15,000 likes less than 30 minutes after it was posted….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Is the Threat of Suicide Bombings Against Americans in the Middle East Imminent?

Canada: Two Muslims indicted in US for trafficking materials to support Pakistan’s nuclear program

NYC: Muslim migrant who raped and murdered 92-year-old woman was in country illegally

RELATED VIDEO: Robert Spencer on Israel, the jihad against the West, and more

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

World Army’s Service Pistols: Ranked

/in , , , , /by

Even though rifles are both very popular and powerful, they are not a must when it comes to the equipment used by the army. For example, a soldier may use a machine gun, submachine gun, rifle, and shotgun as well.

Basically, the kit of an army-man varies. However, there’s one particular firearm that can be found on any member of the army – namely, the pistol, also known as a handgun.

Why every soldier needs a handgun? Well, because it is the most reliable weapon that one can use in CQC scenarios – unlike a rifle or a machine gun, for example.

As such, in today’s article, we’ll take a close look at the best service pistols that the world army is currently using!

Taurus PT-92

This particular pistol is better known as the Brazilian copy of the infamous Beretta 92 – it’s made by the Taurus firm. However, keep in mind that it is not an identical copy, mainly because the manufacturer makes the pistol based on original Beretta machinery that was left behind in Brazil after the expiration of their military contract.

The main differences between the Taurus and the Beretta are the de-cocker and the frame-mounted combination safety.

Beretta 92FS

As you may know, the Italian firm Beretta is the oldest arms company in the world that is still operating. Therefore, it goes without saying why the Beretta 92FS is the service pistol of Italy!

The 92FS model comes with a DA/SA design and features what is known as one of the best stock factory triggers that can be found on the market. Just as the previous entry (the Taurus), this Beretta features a de-cocker and combination safety, as well as impressive ergonomics.

Vektor Z88

The Z88 Vektor is the pistol of choice of the South African army. Once again, the Z88 was basically a domestically produced copy of the aforementioned Beretta 92.

As such, the Z88 features the same DA/SA design with a de-cocking safety and with a 15-round magazine as well. It’s best acknowledged for the modernization of the South African Army.

FN Five-Seven

Moving on to Belgium, their service pistol of choice is the FN Five-Seven. As you may already know, the Five-Seven fires 5.7×28 mm rounds but can also share ammunition with other FN, namely with the P90 PDW.

Even though the ammunition is rather long, it is also thin enough to allow the Five-Seven to fit a 20-rounds magazine – a flush-fitting one, that is. The main characteristics of this pistol are its very low recoil and soft armor penetration.

Makarov

Naturally, the Makarov is Russia’s service pistol – as expected by many of you. The Makarov is still around mainly because Russia is more focused on rifles and such.

However, this doesn’t mean that the Makarov is outdated. The pistol comes with a blowback-operated design and an 8-rounds capacity. The ammo it uses is basically a +P .380 ACP round.

The main benefits of the Makarov are the fact that a single pistol is made of 27 parts – this makes this particular pistol easy to produce and cheap.

The HK U.S.P

This particular handgun is the service pistol of Spain, Greece, Ireland, and Germany. It features a DA/SA design and is known as the universal self-loading pistol – naturally, the U.S.P is Heckler and Koch’s premier handgun design.

The USP was also built around the 40 S&W, even if the 9mm is the chosen cartridge of NATO. On top of that, this pistol was also chambered in 45 A.C.P and 357 SIG.

The handgun’s main characteristic is its mechanical recoil reduction system, based on a heavy captive coil spring, capable of buffering recoil by up to 30%.

Glock 17, 19, and 34

Reportedly, the mentioned Glock pistols are used by over 20 nations as their service handguns – among which the UK, Finland, Austria, Poland, Romania, and Venezuela.

In short, you can find a Glock in almost any country.

The only difference between the 17, 19, and 34 models is the grip length and barrel. However, all of them come with the legendary rugged and reliable design.

The Glock is so popular mainly due to its accuracy, reliability, ease of use, price, and the fact that it is lightweight.

Browning Hi-Power

This pistol is used in India, Australia, Canada, Thailand, and Bahrain. It is widely known for its longevity and popularity in military service. Reportedly, it has been used by almost everyone out there – with little to no complaints.

In terms of features, the pistol is one of the first 9mm of high capacity that entered regular service. It comes with a single action only design and features a 13-round magazine and a manual safety.

SIG P320 – designated the M17/18

The SIG P320 was adopted by the US army in 9mm, compact (M18) and full size (M17) variants. The two variants are known as being quite advanced when it comes to military sidearms, mainly because they feature compatibility for red dot optics.

Like with the classic P320, the M17 and 18 come with the ability to move their serialized fire control group to various grip modules. However, the US army included a manual safety, as it is rather strict when it comes to serial numbers.

The Bottom Line

Naturally, these are not all of the service pistols used by the army or the military. However, they are the best out there – starting with the SIG P320 and ending with our first entry, the Taurus.

As you can notice, most countries kept their local manufacturers close to them – such as Italy and Russia – while others opted for better and more powerful service pistols.

On the other hand, given that all of the countries mentioned above still stick to these handguns as their service pistols, it goes without saying that training plays a big part too. For example, the Hi-Power may be 100 years old – but if the army knows how to use one, that’s quite enough!

Roe v Wade comes to Hollywood — Exclusive interview with the star of a new film about the famous court case.

/in , , , , , , , /by

January 22 marks the 47th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the most contentious decision ever handed down by the US Supreme Court. In a 7-2 judgement, the Court held that American women have a “fundamental” right to an abortion.

Since that day, an estimated 61 million of them have taken place in the US. No longer a dark secret, abortions are being churned out on an industrial scale. Although the number of induced abortions has declined in recent years, the latest tally, for 2017, is still 862,320.

In the history of the US legal system, no other judgement has had such momentous consequences. Abortion touches every man, woman and child. If those lives had not been snuffed out, for instance, the US would be a nation of about 400 million.

Roe v Wade is a real-life story which screams out for a big-screen drama.

New York businessman and Hollywood personality Nick Loeb is having a go.

Roe v Wade, a film in which he is the co-producer, co-director, co-scriptwriter, and co-star, will be released later this year, possibly in the (northern hemisphere) spring. Earlier this month he spoke with MercatorNet about his ambitious project.

Loeb plays Bernard Nathanson, the central character in the film. “He’s the guy who came out later and admitted that they’d lied about everything,” says Loeb. “They lied about all the evidence, all the statistics, all the numbers that helped push their agenda. They made them up. It was fake news!”

Even Jane Roe was fake news. That was the pseudonym of Norma McCorvey, a pawn of the pro-choice lawyers who handled the case. She later joined the pro-life movement and became a Catholic.

Nathanson, who died in 2011, was one of the architects of Roe v Wade.  He was a co-founder of NARAL (now NARAL Pro-Choice America), a leading abortion rights group. In the early 70s he established the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health in New York City, which he later described as “the first and largest abortion clinic in the Western world.” He admitted that he had presided over 60,000 abortions, 5,000 of which he performed himself. He even operated on a girlfriend and aborted their child.

But after Roe v. Wade Nathanson had a conversion. By 1974 he repudiated abortion after watching them via ultrasound. In an article in the leading medical journal in the US, the New England Journal of Medicine, he wrote “there is no longer any serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy.” Eventually he became one of the leading campaigners for the pro-life side and also became a Catholic.

His story resonates with Loeb.

“When I got involved in the project, I’d never even heard of Bernard Nathanson,” he said. “As I learned more about the story and all the characters involved and when I read Bernie’s books, I found his story to be reflective of mine.

“And not only mine, but of a lot of people of my generation. We grew up in a world where we didn’t think there was anything wrong with a woman wanting an abortion – it was her body, her right. It was like pulling off a scab; it was just a lump of cells. What did I know? I was born in 1975. Nobody in school was telling us, ‘hey, there’s a baby in there’.”

This is where Loeb’s interest in Nathanson becomes personal.

“Like Bernie, I was involved in abortions – not 70,000 of them – but I was involved in two, with past girlfriends.”

It was literally a nightmare for him.

“I’d have dreams of the child that I had killed. It was surreal. You know, I’m not a religious person. I believe in God but I don’t subscribe to any one particular organised religion. I said to myself, wow, maybe I’ve made this huge mistake and I’ve killed my child. It haunted me for many, many years. I also wanted to be a young father and I’d blown my chances and I felt that I’d really screwed this up.

“And as I learned about the issue, I started to think, O my God, there really was a baby in there. And they feel pain in the first couple of weeks and there’s a heartbeat in the first 21 days.

“So I changed my opinion. I became pro-life for me and pro-choice for everyone else.”

That’s basically the Cuomo Doctrine. It was proposed by the legendary New York governor Mario Cuomo in 1984: no one is entitled to impose their belief in the sanctity of life on others. It has been invoked countless times by American politicians to square their religious beliefs with their political survival.

But Loeb eventually saw through that tawdry compromise.

“And then somebody came to me and said, hey, Nick, do you rob liquor stores? And I said, that’s wrong; you’ll go to jail. So, he said, it’s not OK for you to rob liquor stores and it’s OK for other people?”

“So I became pro-life for everybody and then under any situation. I became adamant about it. It’s a life, the most innocent of all lives, and should be protected. No matter what, no matter how it got there in the first place.”

Even in cases of rape? Yes, Loeb says, even then.

His intellectual journey surprises even him.

“You know, growing up, I thought all those right-to-lifers were crazy people,” he muses. “I’ve now become one of them. Now I look at the pro-choicers and they’re the ones who are crazy.”

Loeb was talking to MercatorNet from his office in Europe. Europeans, he observes, have liberal abortion laws, but people don’t boast about having had one. Instead, they feel embarrassed and humiliated. The contrast with the US could not be starker.

“Hollywood has made it something to be proud of today,” he says. “‘Shout Your Abortion’ is a real organisation. Comedians are going out there saying, ‘I can’t wait to have an abortion. It makes me excited.’

“This is vile and gross and disgusting. But, you know, that’s hurt their movement and helped ours. ‘Cause even if you hear clapping in the background for a stand-up comedian who says that, the general population today thinks it’s disgusting.”

Although most of his friends are pro-choice, Loeb feels that the day when Roe v Wade will be reversed is not that far off. “One hundred percent in my lifetime,” he says. And possibly in the next four years, if a pro-life justice is appointed to the Supreme Court.

Back to his film, on which he has been working for at least three years.

Loeb has lined up a solid cast, including Oscar-winning Jon Voight as Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and actress and talk-show host Stacey Dash as Mildred Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School and a strong pro-lifer.

It’s going to be a tough sell in the media, which is almost monolithic in its support of abortion. Even most of the actors, perhaps four out of five, were pro-choice. “But you know what?” he says. “They believe in telling the truth of Roe; they believe in the free expression of opinion.”

The film tells the behind-the-scenes story of how the justices formed their opinions. From his research, Loeb feels that some of the seven who voted to create a right to abortion were actually pro-life but had succumbed to public and family pressure. “It was a big deal; this tore families apart at the time,” he says.

“I hope people go see this, and not just pro-life supporters. We take a look at both sides of the argument. And we just tell the truth of what the characters did in their lives. We didn’t make up that Bernard converted. We didn’t make up that Norma converted,” Loeb says.

“Nobody during this time went from being pro-life to pro-choice. No one converted the other way. No one can say these characters converted the other way and you left them out of your story.”

Roe v Wade has a budget of about US$7 million; by Hollywood standards, this is an ultra low-budget. But from a financial point of view, low-budget “faith-friendly” (not “faith-based”, Loeb stresses) movies can be smash hits, with a healthy return on investment. He cites War Room (budget of $3 million, box office of $74 million) and Unplanned (budget of $6 million, box office of $21 million).

And Roe v Wade has the advantage of 47 years of advance publicity. As a brand, Loeb points out, it’s iconic. There’s no need to prime the audience.

COLUMN BY

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet     

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