Abortionism – Cult of Death

/in , , , , , , , /by

What is “abortionism”? When you search the word “abortionism” on Google, you get a paltry 7,010 results and not a whole lot of substance. Even as I type the term into my word processor, a squiggly red “error” line appears underneath it telling me it’s not a word. Yet, abortionism is very real. It is my purpose today to introduce you to abortionism and raise my warning voice against this evil.

In a brilliant 2014 article for LifeSiteNews, one of the premier sources for pro-life news, Jonathon Van Maren gave us this description of abortionism:

““Abortionism” is essentially a philosophy that raises abortion to a sacred status, above all other democratic principles.

“. . . Abortion’s now-sacred status is symptomatic of something far more sinister: the sweeping success of the Sexual Revolution. So-called “sexual rights” are now considered to be the most important “rights” our society has, and take precedence over all other rights, regardless of how fundamental they are.”

Abortionism is part and parcel of a creed that places sex on an altar. For adherents, sex and self-gratification is a religion. Anything connected with sex, such as “sexual rights” – of which abortion ranks first – is considered sacrosanct. “My body, my choice” has become their mantra. And abortion is their highest sacrament. The deluded parishioners of this death cult view any opposition to abortion-on-demand and the hedonistic culture that necessitates it as an attack on their core beliefs.

This sycophantic assembly of abortion-lovers is oblivious to the fact that they are imitating the cultures of the past which sacrificed precious babies to pagan gods. In my article “Moloch’s Modern Children,” I wrote:

“Abortion is nothing if not child sacrifice. It is perhaps more systematized and sanitized by impersonal medical jargon than its ancient counterpart, but the result is the same – the mass slaughter of infants. Whereas the heathen peoples of the past sacrificed their children to false gods and idols for religious purposes, we sacrifice our children on the altar of political ideology. . . .

“Truly, abortion is modern human sacrifice disguised in medical terminology and deceptively euphemistic language. It is just as grotesque and cruel today as when the heathens did it anciently. . . .

“Abortion is infanticide, plain and simple. It is our modern-day version of public ritual sacrifice. We don’t sacrifice our children to Moloch by making them “pass through the fire” (2 Kings 23:10), but we do sacrifice them in murder facilities known as abortion clinics. We don’t burn them to death, but we do rip their little skulls apart and suck out their brains, inject them with fatal chemicals, snip their spinal cord, leave them in freezers to die, or cut them apart while still alive in order to harvest their organs. How are we any different than the pagan peoples of the past? If anything, we are worse because we deny that our actions are wrong and turn a blind eye to the gruesome ways in which our children are butchered.”

Like the Hebrews of the past in their times of wickedness, modern peoples sacrifice their children to false gods – whether those gods be ideologies, political parties, or religious beliefs. Though we don’t usually burn our children to death before a chanting crowd, we nevertheless butcher them – and then feminists and LGBT maniacs clamor for this “right” in mass protests. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Al Lemmo, a self-declared “pro-life activist” and current Republican congressional candidate running against the radical socialist feminist Muslim Rashida Tlaib, has written some of the most scathing rebukes of abortionism you can find on the net. Lemmo defined abortionism as an “idolatrous cult . . . based in a philosophy of human self-worship.” He further observed:

“Its standard practices are three “abortions”:

“1) The Theological Abortion of the authority of God to grant us our human rights . . . This act of idolatry is at the heart of all sin. It can also be described as idolatrous worship of the human intellect as competent to choose criteria for who deserves the recognition and protection of the human community as persons under the law. This enables the second abortion, which is…

“2) The Mental Abortion, by which the target population, however defined, is mentally relegated to some subhuman category such that anything can be done to it. This step is essential to overcoming the moral obstacles to committing the most egregious violations of other human beings that all human societies prohibit. Conscience is effectively removed from the picture by this process such that the third and final abortion can be done. This is…

“3) The Physical Abortion of lives or liberties by some form of murder, enslavement, plunder or bodily violation. In the case of prenatal child-slaying it is literally [a] living human sacrifice (abortion rites) to the idols this nation has come to worship (money, power, reputation, convenience, unrestricted sexual expression, etc.).”

The self-worship premise of abortionism brings to mind a statement from the ex-communist Whittaker Chambers. In his exposé Witness, Chambers observed:

“Communism is what happens when, in the name of Mind, men free themselves from God” (Whittaker Chambers, Witness, xxxvii).

As will be discussed later, the plague of abortion – modern human sacrifice – has been promoted most fervently by the Marxists. But in a broader sense, abortionism, hedonism, feminism, and all other selfish, me-centered ideologies, are a result of man’s rejection of God. This amalgam of Devilish philosophies is a complete repudiation of reality and nature. It is a rebellion against the very notion of eternal law and order!

Abortionism is a rejection of God and, with Him, a rejection of moral laws. The creed deifies man – though not unborn humans, apparently. It negates all just laws and the decrees of the Constitution. It abolishes the notion promulgated in the Declaration of Independence that we have certain natural rights from our Creator, such as the right to life. It completely dismisses the basis of Western civilization as incorrect and instead embraces the might-makes-right barbarism of the past.

I cannot emphasize this too strongly. And so at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me restate these points. As Americans, it is particularly crucial that we understand that abortionism strikes at the heart of everything that made our Republic great and that those who promote it are inherently anti-American. Abortionism is not merely another lifestyle – it is alien and hostile to Americanism. It is incompatible with our traditional culture and societal system. The United States was founded on the idea of eternal law. Our nation’s first law, first creed, and first public declaration proclaims that we are all “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is to “secure these rights, [that] Governments are instituted among Men.” The U.S. government was brought into being to protect life and all that a free existence entails!

Americanism, at its core, is based on the concept that there is a God, that the universe is governed by immutable laws, that human beings are bound by those laws, and that the primary purpose of individuals forming civil societies and erecting governments is to better secure those rights and defend against those who would destroy them. Abortionists, by default, are at open war with the first of all rights, the right of life, and with our Constitution which guarantees this right. The malicious destruction of innocent human life, therefore, is an attack upon God’s laws, Christian culture, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Americanist philosophy.

In another editorial, Al Lemmo wrote the following about this vile death cult and further explained why it is incompatible with the American Freedom philosophy, rule of law, and Christian civilization:

“Abortionism is the world’s oldest and most destructive cult. Its central dogma, unchanged through millennia, has held that the fundamental and inalienable rights to life, liberty and property are not rights at all but conditional grants that may be terminated or aborted at any time on the basis of whatever criteria those who have the power to do the aborting choose to recognize. Any portion of the human community may be summarily excluded from recognition and even destroyed based on these criteria. The criteria may include race, color, creed, national origin, class, sex, abilities and birth.

“The Abortionite dogma is totally opposed to that of the originally established “religion” of America which was an inclusive philosophy of unconditional and intrinsic human rights. The only criterion for inclusion was to be a living member of the human species, born or unborn. I choose to call this philosophy “Intrinsicism”. The Abortionite dogma is then an extreme subset of a philosophy that can be called “Extrinsicism”, or the belief that fundamental human rights derive from extrinsic human sources rather than being inherent with each individual.

“The extremism of the Abortionite lies in his willingness to destroy (or abort) the fundamental human rights of those he has refused to grant recognition or personhood. . . .

“Regardless of exclusionary criterion, the central dogma and guiding philosophy of Abortionism – that rights are granted to powerless people by powerful people rather than intrinsic with every individual – remains intact from one sect to the next. The reverence for power, especially the power to decide whose lives and liberties may be destroyed, has always been the common thread among all Abortionites. . . .

“The first objective of any Abortionite campaign has been to breach the wall of separation between freedom and oppression (or civilization and barbarianism) which is the philosophical foundation of a free or civilized society. This wall is the philosophy of Intrinsicism. Once the wall is breached by compromising the integrity of the philosophy that protects life and liberty, all the criteria of the various Abortionite sects then compete on an equal basis because they are justified in principle.

“Abortionism is humanity’s original false religion . . . Eternal vigilance is the price of keeping Abortionism in check, yet it has such an amazing capacity to evade detection, mutate and adapt itself to any culture, that it has continued to plague humanity, even infecting a society as dedicated to human rights as our own in epidemic proportions.”

We can debate some of Lemmo’s definitions perhaps, but there is no debating the fact that the death cult of abortionism is hostile to everything America has traditionally stood for – Faith, Families, and Freedom. It is inimical to the rights declared in our founding documents. It is antithetical to the Christian norms that have undergirded our society for centuries. It is an offensive, perverse, murderous ideology born in and suckled on blood. The voices of millions of infants cry out to the God who gave them life against this ritualized slaughter.

The Lord anciently said “all they that hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36). It is an eternally true proverb. Those in rebellion against the Lord’s laws in our day are part of a massive death cult. Communism is the ultimate murder cult and all those who support and tolerate the socialist/communist ideology – which advocates abortion as a “human right” – hate the Lord and love death.

In 1971, the great religious leader Spencer W. Kimball took to the pulpit to admonish society for adopting hedonistic practices. He spoke of the lax sexual norms that lead to ideologies like abortionism and how these trends destroy families and will eventually upend our entire society. He stated:

“Men and women are “lovers of their own selves.” They boast in their accomplishment. They curse. They blaspheme. Another sin is disobedience of children to parents and parents’ disobedience to law. Many are without the natural affection, which seems to be eroding family life as they seek to satisfy their own selfish wants.

“There are said to be millions of perverts who have relinquished their natural affection and bypassed courtship and normal marriage relationships. This practice is spreading like a prairie fire and changing our world. They are without “natural affection” for God, for spouses, and even for children.

“Paul speaks of continence—a word almost forgotten by our world. Still in the dictionary, it means self-restraint, in sexual activities especially. Many good people, being influenced by the bold spirit of the times, are now seeking surgery for the wife or the husband so they may avoid pregnancies and comply with the strident voice demanding a reduction of children. It was never easy to bear and rear children, but easy things do not make for growth and development. But loud, blatant voices today shout “fewer children” and offer the Pill, drugs, surgery, and even ugly abortion to accomplish that. Strange, the proponents of depopulating the world seem never to have thought of continence!

“Libraries are loaded with books with shocking pictures, showing people how to totally satisfy their animal natures, but few books are found on the self-control of continence. With a theory that “life is for sex,” every imagination of the minds of men devises ways to more completely get what they call “sexual fulfillment,” which they demand at the expense of all else—family, home, eternal life. There should be from press and lecture platform and pulpit deep and resounding voices urging man to rise above the carnal and rest his mind on things clean and sacred” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future,” General Conference, April, 1971).

Yes, society is wrapped up in self-love to the detriment of everything holy and good. People want the benefits of sex without marriage, of intimacy without responsibility, and of pleasure without “burdens” like children. They use devices, pills, and procedures to ensure that they won’t fulfill the highest purpose of sexual intimacy – having children. But of course they’ll happily receive the sexual benefits formerly reserved for marriage! They are so self-absorbed and care only about themselves and their own convenience and pleasure to such an extreme degree that they’re willing to murder their offspring.

Let’s make no bones about it. Abortion is infanticide! It is de facto murder. It is the premeditated destruction of another human being – a little child with fingers, eyes, and a heartbeat. Mortal life begins at conception. In spite of all the propaganda to the contrary, science has conclusively proven this to be the case. With this in mind, we can positively state that elective abortion – which accounts for 99% of all abortions whereas exceptions for rape victims account for less than one percent of procedures – is the willing, deliberate, and unnecessary taking of life and has no place in a free and ordered society.

Feminists and their ilk say “my body, my choice.” But this is not true. It is such an intellectually flimsy argument that every honest person can see through it. In a 2008 sermon, the world-renowned heart surgeon and current president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Russell M. Nelson, spoke of abortion and the “my body, my choice” myth. He said:

“This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice. . . .

“. . . Most abortions are performed on demand to deal with unwanted pregnancies. These abortions are simply a form of birth control.

“Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. . . .

“Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut’s mission or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot “unchoose.”

“When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make. . . .

“Life is precious! No one can cuddle an innocent infant, look into those beautiful eyes, feel the little fingers, and kiss that baby’s cheek without a deepening reverence for life and for our Creator. Life comes from life. It is no accident. It is a gift from God. Innocent life is not sent by Him to be destroyed. It is given by Him and is naturally to be taken by Him alone” (President Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” General Conference, October, 2008).

Life is precious, indeed! Babies are cherished gems trusted into our care. A baby is a “reward” from our Father in Heaven (Psalm 127:3-5). No one has a right to snuff out an innocent life – and especially not for mere convenience sake. No one has a right to destroy another body while erroneously claiming it is their own body. No one has a right to deny nature or escape the consequences of their choices – including the beautiful gift that is a human child. And no unrepentant soul will escape the harsh judgment reserved for those who destroy innocent children.

Yet, despite these seminal truths, the selfish mindset of abortionism is spreading. It is so bad that some spiritually sick women are now getting pregnant just so they can abort their babies in what is nothing more than ritual murder! Despite recent pro-life legal victories, our culture is becoming continuously saturated with the death cult mentality. Life is little valued. The weakest among us are scarcely protected. And far too many otherwise good people are silent, thus becoming complicit in the criminality.

No civilized society, no society that is just, no society that values the rule of law, can allow abortion. It is a plague like slavery. As slavery did, it is tearing our society apart. And what Thomas Jefferson said of slavery applies to abortion:

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever” (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII).

I tremble for America when I think that since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision – an affront to the Bill of Rights’ guarantee of the right of life – over 70 million innocent, defenseless infants have been slaughtered. For context, this is a higher death toll than that accrued at the hands of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union! It is many times more than all the deaths of American service men in all of our nation’s wars combined! How truly sad it is that more Americans have been killed by their own mothers than at the hands of all our enemies!

One final point should be discussed. Perhaps my readers tire of me mentioning the communists, but out of fidelity to truth, I must do so. In modern times, abortion has been popularized and normalized by the Marxists. Yes, the feminists have been at the forefront of promoting this infanticide as a woman’s “right,” but feminism itself is only part of cultural Marxism and the leading feminists were usually card-carrying members of the Communist Party (and, frequently, anti-Christian Jews). The LGBT movement which also promotes hedonism and abortion was started by a homosexual man named Harry Hay who was, you guessed it, also a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA (he originally married a fellow communist Jewess before divorcing her to pursue his homosexual fantasies). And the Soviet Union was the first nation to legalize abortion-on-demand (as well as no-fault divorce). All of this was introduced to fulfill The Communist Manifesto’s dream of “abolishing the family” and subverting Christian society to make way for global domination by the Marxist state.

It should be startling to Americans do know that we are following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union and adopting the avowed principles of Marxism – the world’s most murderous ideology. Not only did communism slaughter between 100-150 million people in Russia and China alone, but it has the blood of dozens of millions more on its hands through the wars its has started and the practice of abortion is popularized. I sincerely believe we will never win our fight against abortionism as an emerging religion if we do not identify it as a branch of the communism conspiracy. And we will never win that fight unless we acknowledge that communism is Satanism and that Satan is a real being who leads the forces of darkness in the fight against the Son of God. If we are to throw off the shroud of darkness that hangs over us, we must do so with the light of Christ – for only light expels darkness.

We battle, as Paul said, “against powers, against the rulers darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12). What wickedness could be greater than the deliberate mass slaughter of infants? What can be called “darkness” if not the genocide of unborn children being perpetrated in abortion clinics worldwide? What, if not abortionism’s assault on life, can possibly rouse us to stand up in defense of our God-given rights?

We have an option as a society. We can stand up and say, “No more” to those who advocate killing the next generation of Americans or we can continue to allow the slaughter of our infants until the act of killing for convenience so saturates our culture that we begin killing the elderly, the diseased, and others we think encumber our lives. Don’t fool yourself – history cries out that this is exactly where this genocidal road leads.

And so, what will you do? Will you sit silently, making yourself an accessory to this great crime of infant slaughter? Or will you exercise all your avenues for speaking out, swaying minds, and warning your neighbor? And what of President Trump? What is he doing? Does he not understand that when he swore his oath to uphold the Constitution that he also swore to protect our rights, including our right to life, regardless of what a rogue Supreme Court said nearly fifty years ago? Do we, as a People, not understand that Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional, and, thus, void, opinion by an activist court that abused its authority? Do we, the American People, not understand that no ruling, no law, no decree from any leader is valid and enforceable unless it conforms to the Constitution – a document which defends life? Or do we simply not have the courage to hold our elected representatives accountable for fulfilling their oaths?

I make a plea for everyone to reject the scourge of abortion, to combat the cultish dogma of abortionism, and to only support men for office who will take their oaths to the Constitution seriously and defend our God-given rights. Stand firm against the onslaught of popular opinion – for we are on the Lord’s errand in defending His precious sons and daughters. He gives life not to be destroyed, but to be cherished and protected. As Americans, do your duty and rise in defense of those ideals which made ours the greatest nation on the face of the earth. Defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom against the demonic assault of the Marxist abortionists!

©2020 Zack Strong. All rights reserved.

Leftists Are Using Race to Push an Anti-American Agenda

/in , , , , , /by

Our country is under attack from radical leftists. Mobs rampage through our streets, monuments are being destroyed, and the very law and order that ensures our communities’ peace and security is being undermined.

In far too many instances, those bent on destruction have hijacked protests, creating violence and division, and ultimately attacking the very foundation of our nation. For them, it’s not about resolving race issues; it’s about using racial discontent to forward their anarchist agenda.

One such group is Antifa. While it is widely recognized as a far-left fringe group, another organization—just as radical—has managed to drape itself in more mainstream clothes, gaining significant support with the public, politicians, and the business community.

While Americans of every color agree with the sentiment that black lives matter, Black Lives Matter the organization actually advocates an agenda that is completely out of step with American values.

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 >>

One look at the Black Lives Matter organization’s website shows that the idea of protecting black lives and seeking justice is merely a vehicle to advance a different, radical set of ideas. The organization is more dedicated to gaining political power and remaking America according to Marxist ideology. Two of the group’s three co-founders are even “trained Marxists,” according to one of them.

And it shows. The group’s platform includes planks unrelated to improving black lives, like trying to get the U.S. to divest from Israel, which it calls an “apartheid state” while accusing Jews of committing genocide against Palestinians.

The organization also has called for dismantling the family, saying, “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.”

The breakdown of the black family and the rise of single-parent households is one of the root causes of poverty, crime, drug abuse, and poor educational achievement in many black communities. Why would anyone who’s supposedly working for black progress want to tear down the very thing that helps to achieve it?

Just as disturbing is the fact that some of America’s biggest corporations are giving hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars to this organization and others whose misleading names conceal a more expansive and dangerous agenda.

Groups such as Antifa and the Black Lives Matter organization want to impose an ideology on America that would only bring greater poverty, a loss of freedom, destruction to churches and civil society, and violent law enforcement tactics to enforce compliance—exactly what we’ve seen in places such as Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.

In fact, we’ve already seen a vision of what their America would look like.

We’ve seen videos of leftist protesters physically and verbally attacking police officers.

We’ve seen an entire neighborhood turned into a violent “autonomous zone” with spineless politicians telling the police to stand down and let anarchists rule over innocent residents.

We’ve seen violent mobs defacing and toppling statues of historical figures such as soldiers and abolitionists. Some are even calling for the removal of images of Jesus in which he is perceived as “too white.”

We must stop the violence and destruction and bring those committing criminal acts to justice while protecting the rights of good people to protest peacefully.

We must support our police officers who risk their lives every day to protect us no matter our color, religion, sex, or nationality—while also making needed reforms to weed out bad cops and end unacceptable policing procedures.

Calls to defund the police are calls for chaos, and calls to disarm them are lunacy. We’ve seen what happens in Seattle, Minneapolis, and other cities when criminals are allowed free rein.

Finally, we must combat the Marxist agenda. This agenda has wrought destruction on nations for generations. It expands government control and takes every opportunity to limit freedom—and it must not take root in the United States.

The most desperate communities in America have been run by the left for a generation or more. We’ve seen what that leadership has brought: generational poverty, fatherless families, worse educational outcomes, more disparity, and higher crime rates. Lurching even further left would be even more disastrous.

Instead, we must implement policies to ensure America’s promise of liberty and opportunity is a promise for all Americans. Conservatives always have had the policies that can help solve many of the difficult issues that Americans face.

We know how to create jobs, end poverty, provide better access to health care, improve education, and strengthen families better than anyone. And our fundamental belief in the inherent dignity of every human being can help bring about the healing our nation so desperately needs.

America is a land of promise, and conservative policies can make those promises ring true for all Americans. It is time for conservatives to take a message of hope to every American to end the racial strife and build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish for all.

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Kay C. James

Kay C. James is president of The Heritage Foundation. James formerly served as director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and as Virginia’s secretary of health and human resources. She is also the founder and president of The Gloucester Institute. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Watch: Black Conservatives Laugh as They Stumble Upon BLM Protest Missing 1 Important Thing

Gingrich Calls on Conservatives to Focus on ‘Black Success,’ Not ‘White Guilt’

Problematic Women: Sen. Martha McSally, Air Force’s First Female Combat Pilot, on ‘Doing Things Afraid’

Don’t Allow a Vocal Fringe Minority to Cut Our Much-Needed Defense Investments

4 Points to Understand the COVID-19 Surge in Texas

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.

Gorsuch Does Transgenderism: Notes on the Wreckage

/in , , , , , /by

Hadley Arkes: Let’s remember the constitutional role played by the political branches in the past, liberal and conservative, to narrow and counter court decisions.

n my previous column (“The Ebbing of Truth”), I was bracing for the decision that the Supreme Court was about to hand down in a case on transgenderism (Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and Bostock v. Clayton County).  Some of us were girding our loins for a shock of seismic force because there had been rumors, now proven so regrettably true, that Justice Neil Gorsuch would defect from the conservative side.

The man who was appointed, with high fanfare, to take the place of Justice Scalia would now make the decisive vote, and write the opinion, in a case that promises to disfigure our laws and our lives, much in the way that Roe v. Wade has worked to remake the culture.

If the schools now begin to instruct the young on the even newer, liberated culture set before them, the youngsters may be given now to wonder just how stable are the differences that really distinguish their mothers from their fathers – or themselves, from their brothers and sisters.  As Michael Hanby, David Crawford and Maggie McCarthy argued, this case may well have brought, as C.S. Lewis had it, “the abolition of man” – and woman.

The case involved Anthony Stephens, who had been working at the Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan for several years before he informed his employers that he wished to “live and work fully as a woman.” In his opinion for the Court, Justice Gorsuch referred to Stephens as “Aimee” and used feminine pronouns at every point.

Gorsuch remarked that “Aimee” had “presented as a male” when “she first got the job.”  From the outset, Gorsuch absorbed the predicate of Stephens’ claim: that in his own understanding, he had in fact become a woman.

Michael Hanby and his colleagues correctly noted that the issue was not the freedom of Stephens to present himself as a woman. To confirm Stephens’ argument was to confirm the obligation of all people around him to respect that claim and treat him as though he were indeed a woman.  If they didn’t affirm that lie, they and their employers could be charged with sustaining a “hostile work environment.”

Some of my friends, reading the case closely, insist that Gorsuch never actually affirmed that Stephens had indeed altered his sex, in the strictest understanding of sex, as the objective differences in the ways our bodies are organized for the function of reproduction.

On the surface, that reading of Gorsuch may look and sound plausible.   But I think we can show, with an even closer reading, that this offers, as the saying goes, a “metaphysic without consequence.” That reading will do nothing to dislodge the judgment in this case, and I think it comes apart the closer we look.

Gorsuch remarked that his judgment did not reach the matter of bathrooms and locker rooms, for those situations were not contained in the case at hand. But Justice Alito quickly pointed out that the holding had been, after all, that it was wrong to turn away from anyone – to withhold a job or a benefit – because of an aversion to a person’s sexual choice of changing genders.  That judgment would presumptively apply to all instances of that discrimination, and indeed the first case has already been pressed on the side of a transgendered high-school girl, seeking admission to a boys’ bathroom.

In the meantime, some of the new, young conservative federal judges may be able to use these cases to resist the sweep of this new principle.  They hope then to induce the Supreme Court to take a sober, second look.

Congress could also make it clear again that the Civil Rights Acts do not bar all-female colleges, and it might deal as well then with female teams and locker rooms.  The Trump Administration has already acted in its own sphere – e.g., in denying access of transgendered women to “women’s shelters.”   It’s time to remind ourselves of the constitutional role played by the political branches in the past, liberal and conservative, to narrow and counter decisions of the courts.

Gorsuch did not have to say anything conclusive on that question of whether Stephens had in fact become a woman.   He could simply use his alchemy of “textualism,” working on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and settle on this limited point: that if Stephens came to regard himself as a woman, that is an understanding that the rest of us are obliged to respect when it comes to “discrimination on the basis of sex.”

But that may also be the key to explain why it will mean nothing in the end to note that Gorsuch had not exactly said that Stephens had changed his biological sex.  My friend Gerard Bradley distilled things in this way:  In the biological sciences, “sex is binary, innate, and immutable.”  And it goes beyond anatomical differences to penetrate to the level of cells.

But “gender identity,” as he says, “denotes a fluid belief system based on cultural constructs, emotion, experiences.”

Gorsuch and the Court can preserve their detachment on the question of whether a man can become a woman only if they simply ignore that inescapable, objective truth of what constitutes “sex.”  To admit that truth is to turn the decision into gibberish.  For if the meaning of “sex” was indeed so inescapably true, no one could be obliged to respect Stephens’ claim to be regarded as a woman.

The deeper irony is that this truth, as a truth, no more comes into sight for the conservative critics of this decision than it does for Gorsuch and his colleagues.  It may be the understanding of “sex” contained in the statutes and in accord with the dictionaries of 1964. But that truth would be there even if the statutes and the dictionaries had said something else.

And conservatives have not counted the ignoring of this truth as the deepest wrong in this decision.  For the melancholy fact is that the appeal to anchoring moral truths has long been ruled out of what has been taken, in our own day,  as “conservative jurisprudence.”

COLUMN BY

Hadley Arkes

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

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2020 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

The Gates to Gehenna

/in , , , , , , /by

Gehenna: (in both Judaism and Christianity) hell.  Bill Gates openly admits that he is a globalist and eugenicist working toward the New World Order with his plan to mass vaccinate and depopulate the planet by 10% to 15%, which may suggest to the alert-minded that his vaccinations will not improve life, but eliminate life.  Bill Gates’s Quantum Dot Vaccine will have an enzyme called Luciferace.  When injected into the human, it will “mark” the person like cattle, and be trackable.  The patent application filed by Microsoft Technology Licensing, LCC, and registered on 26 March 2020, is WO/2020/060606, known as “666” and titled, “Cryptocurrency system using body activity data.”

There have always been voices whose aim it was to abolish national sovereignty for globalism – a Master Plan for world conquest.  In addition to the discernible despots, there are the self-defined intellectual elites – the enlightened ones – whose world government would guarantee protection for the submissive or unaware in exchange for their freedom and human dignity.

Bill and Melinda Gates, aided and abetted by the Obama administration, leads the way in destroying public education, turning out under educated Marxists with his Common Core curriculum.  It also oversexualizes the children toward transgendering, demeaning the boys for toxic masculinity, their virility and desire to father the next generation with the anticipated result of depopulation, Gates’s ultimate purpose.   His foundation for depopulation, heavily financed by Warren Buffet’s $30 billion donation, contributes to engineering millions, perhaps billions, of human casualties and tragedies.

If the global warming panic and the gender madness failed to subdue us effectively, the coronavirus, COVID-19, fortuitously, if not purposely created to deliver the scare tactics, continues the assault.  Inexperienced epidemiologists were suddenly in authority, spouting severe cautionary statements, only to change them the following week.  This is an American, even a World, First to force-quarantine the healthy, using carefully manipulating behaviors.   All but “necessary” businesses were shut down indefinitely, some open under strict conditions.  The elite in the limelight remained well coiffed and free to conduct their own affairs.

To the false goals of flattening the curve and bogus fatality rates, power seekers added new prohibitions.  Having achieved submission, despotic governors issued additional senseless proclamations, varying in type,  intensity and duration, that turned sheltered care facilities into virus breeding grounds, workforces into depressed unemployed, some homebound into spousal abusers, and the desperate into suicides.  School closings may have caused irreparable damage to the children who, left on their own, would fall further behind the studious and gifted.   Many businesses closed their doors forever, and major industries – travel, real estate, construction, and more – were seriously affected.

Dr. Antony Fauci, “respected” epidemiologist, immunologist, and member of Gates’s Leadership Council, issued many directives based on available data, only to modify them later, with the media adding to the hysteria.  Dr. Stephen M. Smith, a widely respected infectious disease specialist, called hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) a “game changer,” a safe, effective treatment for COVID-19.  The FDA had ruled it safe for the last half-century.   In April, a poll of 62,000 physicians in 30 countries found HCQ to be the best drug available to treat this virus – used in conjunction with azithromycin, zinc and Vitamin D.  But Fauci endorsed remdesivir, which was shown to be a failed antiviral drug that had significantly higher mortality rates (5%), but also a significantly higher profit margin.

Dr. Peter R. Breggin, MD, has now published his findings, “Fauci’s Remdesivir: Inadequate to Treat COVID-19 and Potentially Lethal.”   Adverse reactions may include lung damage – respiratory failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome, with five percent developing a life-threatening decline in condition. Fauci clandestinely ended a double-bind clinical trial “to let the placebo group know so they can have access to remdesivir.” However, since the drug was not saving lives, had serious effects from earlier trials, and its results were disappointing and controversial, “Fauci may have needlessly endangered the lives of the placebo patients by unleashing remdesivir upon them.”  Fauci’s research is considered worthless, “except to raise serious doubts about the drug’s hidden safety profile.”  Lancet reported the drug’s potential increased damage to the lungs.

Through the duration of the trial, Fauci must have realized that his drug was not going to reduce the mortality rate or even lead to complete recovery.  When success criteria were dropped, the primary marker became “time to recovery.”  Fauci then “reinvented the concept of recovery” to include patients who remain hospitalized or at home, requiring oxygen and needing to limit their activities – to get his desired results.  It was also revealed that of Fauci’s 50 committee members who set treatment guidelines, nine had financial ties to Giliad, manufacturer of remdesivir, the vaccination peddled by Fauci.  The less profitable HCQ was removed as an option with no verifiable statistics; remdesivir is being used today.

The corrupt Veterans Administration study claimed to show HCQ useless and dangerous, and President Trump’s treatment of hydroxychloroquine was ridiculed, but frontline physicians around the world contend their studies have shown it to be an “astonishingly effective … miracle drug!”

Some people were made so fearful by inaccurate “statistics,” the lockdowns and job losses to ruin the economy, that it triggered neuroses, obsessive behavior, anger and cruelty.  Face masks are still mandated although Dr. Fauci admitted their purpose was primarily for psychological reassurance.  For some they cause anxiety, PTSD, claustrophobia, and exacerbate asthma, headaches, and respiratory issues.  The masks and media perpetuate the fear, keep the public eager for vaccinations, and prevent specific rallies and in-person voting.  The public is in limbo, their lives on hold, eagerly awaiting a “blessed” vaccination.

The millions of out-of-school students and lockdown-unemployed are free to become Bill Gates’s willing army of contract tracers for an illusion of safety, and to ensure that his vaccinations are implemented according to his plan.  To what end?  To collect data and encourage people to tattle on others, to keep the public vulnerable and acquiescent while demanding his vaccine of choice for the trillion-dollar industry – as well as to destroy our America for the coveted One World.  The globalist crème include Bill and Melinda Gates, the Soros foundations, Hillary Clinton, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Corp., Ford Foundation, Warren Buffet, and 150 mainstream media outlets.  The International Air Transport Association (IATA), representing 299 airlines, is the prime promoter of a global ID tracking system – contract tracing for an “Immunity Passport” for the right to travel.

Sold as necessary for “the common good,” the passport is already operating in some states by the 13.5 IOS update on the iphone.  Gates’s control reaches wealth, policies, priorities, population, health, narratives, minds, land, industries, the rights to movement and our future.  He is involved with everything, and he is willing to risk other people’s lives.

As reported by noted investigative journalists Corey’s Digs, the WHO, UN and Gates control the media; the healthcare and vaccine industries; climate change hoax, with 200 billionaires who would also like to rule the world; geoengineering population control; tourism in islands known for drugs and human trafficking; investments in lab-grown meat; labor and sex trafficking in Africa; population control through abortion and transgenderism; eugenics, carrying out experimentation on humans, and population databases; and contact tracing, a multiple-state surveillance program on Americans.  Bill Gates intends to control global population based on their immunity, as verified by the “digital certificate.”  The $3 trillion coronavirus package submitted to Congress includes $75 billion for Nancy Pelosi’s COVID19 testing, tracing and isolation program, which is being marketed to governors across the country and already underway in Massachusetts.

Contact tracing, whose structure already exists for Partners in Health (PIH), with Chelsea Clinton on the board of trustees, has been well funded by Bill Gates.  The program is designed to investigate one’s personal life, includes quarantine camps, mandatory masks in public despite Dr. Fauci’s admission (above), and provides mobile units (contact tracing armies) that will seize and isolate anyone who tests positive.  The supporting programs already exist in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and North Carolina; are under discussion in California, Minnesota, and Maryland; and planned for the rest of the world.  They judge President Trump a “national security risk” because Trump was going to “unravel vital ties across the Asia-Pacific region,” which I take to mean an impediment to Gates’s vaccination plans.

The contact tracing has begun.  Washington state is forcing restaurants to keep daily logs of their customers – name, address, phone number, time of arrival. Indiana is outsourcing their tracing to Maximus, a 500-people staff at a cost of $43 million a year.  California’s Governor Newsome has mandated masking and building a tracing army, a volunteer corps of 10,000; Michigan’s Governor Whitmer has already recruited 2,000 volunteer tracers.  Tennessee has been housing the homeless during the pandemic, a forced quarantine.  Wisconsin’s Supreme Court struck down the stay-at-home order and seizure of power, which would have had citizens detained and confined without benefit of trial.

Gates hopes to implement digital certificates, to obtain everyone’s virus and vaccination histories.  He wants a “national tracking system,” a human “barcode,” to determine the person’s health, vaccination identity and status.  He assures us that this is merely for safety and convenience – that is, until it’s not, when he may desire the information’s value for other reasons, against our human and civil rights.

Bill Gates extends his unlimited wealth and reach far beyond travel, for credit, purchases, job opportunities, healthcare access.  Lacking credentials, he transformed his self-image from software magnate into a visionary capable of defining the health of billions of people around the globe.  As noted in The Corbett Report, the Gates Foundation has spent tens of millions of dollars per year on media partnerships to boost his new image and his connections with global alliances and big pharmaceutical companies, earning him profits in the billions.  He helped to create Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; control ten tropical diseases; the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents; the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations; the World Health Organization; the National Institute of Health; the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and more, including their pledge to “fight” coronavirus, with Dr. Gauci as representative.  His “philanthropy” of investing his Microsoft stock into his foundation, during the Decade of Vaccines, doubled to $103.1 billion; philanthropy becomes revenue.

The accolades Gates received for vaccines the world over led to enormous profits for Big Pharma companies, greater control for the Gates Foundation over global health, and greater power for Bill Gates over the planet’s population.  He persuades that we cannot return to normal until there’s a vaccine for all, yet he acknowledges the risks (the paralysis of 40 to 500 children, the paralysis of 490,000+ in India from the oral polio vaccines given between 2000 and 2017) and therefore, wants advance legal immunity for the pharma companies.  He continues to threaten our freedoms with impending doom in order to market his untested, experimental vaccinations to everyone on the planet.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced 20% of human test subjects were severely injured from Gates-Fauci coronavirus vaccines by Moderna.  Fauci was so confident that he waived ferret and primate studies, and 15 human guinea pigs suffered a serious adverse event within 43 days of receiving Moderna’s injections.  A vaccine with those reaction rates could cause grave injuries in 1.5 billion humans if administered to “every person on earth.”  Corey’s Digs assures that money is not the end goal of Gates’s “philanthropic” activities.  It is also not control of only the health industry, but of the human population itself.

©All rights reserved.

Christianity/Judaism is our Foe … Word manipulation is Control

/in , , , , , /by

“Christianity is our foe. If animal rights are to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition.” – Peter Singer, founder of Animal Rights.

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”  – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

And you thought the Environmental movement was about the environment. Today nothing is as it seems.  How do you control millions of people? You lie to them.  The purpose of the Environmental movement:  MONEY, POWER, CONTROL

Remember Michelle Obama and her famous statement about changing history?  The altering of history enhances dumbing of the people by infusing meaningless values prompted by emotional trigger words rather than facts.  Values not facts are now promoted in school.  Facts are truths which give people the security of knowing where you are like being home with a warm fuzzy feeling you can always count on.  Facts ground you because wherever you are, facts never change and will bring you home.  You can always count on facts to be the same for everyone. People can communicate on facts alone. Facts when known, bind individuals together.  Facts are the fastest way to unite people because they are the same for everyone. People knowing the same fact can organize quickly and come together efficiently.  To conquer people, facts must be destroyed. Once values, which are ever changing opinions, replace facts, individuals become confused and are easily led and often become part of a gang, crowd or mob for security.  This is called identity politics aka division.  People are identified and divided by things over which they have no control like Race or Gender.

By calling division “DIVERSITY”, participants think they are allowed individual opinion when in reality all groups must think the same.

By using identity politics, one group becomes the haves while all in opposition are destroyed economically or by violence.    School programs like: School to Work, NCLB, CCS eliminate facts and indoctrinate value driven emotion by training individuals what to think not HOW TO THINK. Once you conquer someone’s emotion you can control them. The school curricula focus on emotions to control the mind.

Emotion creates a trigger which when used subliminally elicits required responses like flash mobs, demonstrations and other events often used to divide people. America is divided through emotional triggers like:  race, global warming, religion, then back to race. Divided people can easily be conquered as social justice dictates which group will receive favors or grants for believing while other groups are demonized and blamed.  The Haves vs Have Not’s arguing, monopolizes the media, diverting attention from real issues.  The end result is loss of Freedom, Family, God and America.

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..” Bill Clinton USA Today–3-11-93, page 2a.  Why Bill, what are you afraid of? Or Nancy?

The easiest way to change the belief system of American individuals through lies and deception is through Outcome Based Education (OBE) replacing Competency Based Education (Carnegie – 8 Year Study 1933-1981.)  When the outcome is predetermined, no skill, common sense, logic or reason is necessary to complete the task. , All you do is follow someone else’s value to arrive at the required conclusion.  Jeannie Georges in her book Outcome Based Education and Higher Thinking Skills found, the motive and the process are worse than the outcome.  Outcome Based Education requires:

  • Cleanse the Slate – eliminate history
  • Dumb them Down – Omit factual education and replace with values
  • Modify the Behavior – Stimulus response – Skinner Pavlov animal training
  • Confuse Values – no right and wrong, no consequences for actions, gender manipulation
  • Assess , Remediate, Reassess –  make sure they are trained

The New World Order Globalist Mafia (aka Global Mafia) believes dumb people require less resources from their government enabling the Global Mafia to maximize profit for themselves. They dreamed up SUSTAINABILITY and tell the masses, “You must do more for less to save the planet.”  If they don’t want people mobile, they demonize gas and the auto blaming them for any environmental change.  Surprise, the sheeple will comply.  Example; bike paths and walkways that interfere with business. .

OBE education fits the bill.   OBE uses word manipulation. Word manipulation is one of the most favored techniques used to divide people. By using the same word with multiple meanings, groups can not have conversations since both believe in their one definition of the word.   Example, the Global Mafia does not want competition so the Global Mafia indoctrinates Human Capital to believe making a profit is bad because others don’t have the same as you.  The Global Mafia will just have to take some of yours … more taxes, more regulation, nationalize this…to level the playing field and make it “fair” for everyone.  The Global Mafia never shares their stash, only yours.  The Global Mafia believes: What is theirs is theirs and what is yours is also theirs. Profit is bad for you good for them.

Let’s see how word manipulation works with candidates using the constitution. Question: Do you believe in the constitution?

When vetting our potential legislators we often ask – Do you believe the Constitution as the supreme law of the land? 

When the answer is yes, we rejoice, donate and vote.  Those of us who do not understand word manipulation, never ask the second question – Do you believe that the Constitution is living breathing flexible – or bed rock solid, the same for all Americans?  The Global Mafia taught their followers to choose #1.  The Global Mafia includes attorneys who manipulate Constitutional laws into case law to favor special interest lobbyists.  This new law divides and conquers the people as they protect believers and quite non believers.  All the while the populace is tricked into believing they are selecting a constitutional candidate. The constitution to the Right stands for FREEDOM.  To the Left the Constitution means Slavery.  Unless you define the word Constitution before you talk, you will wind up in a fight.

If you are unsure of your legislator, Google: Aspen Institute and your legislator’s name.  The Aspen Institute is a Global Mafia think tank supported and funded by the Islamists and Global Mafia, including Soros, Gates, Saudis, American Taxpayer and the usual suspects.  Our legislators go to the Aspen Institute to be trained into globalization – the elimination of America. Would you be surprised to learn Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and Debbie Wasserman Shultz are graduates? As a result of this training, there is no right and left, no Democrats or Republicans.  All progressives are in the same Global Mafia and filter through the RNC and DNC.  Democrats are taught to have no responsibility, love big government and let government handle every aspect of their lives. The Global Mafia can then own everything while leaving crumbs for the common folk.  This type of government is communism.  Republicans who learn Fabian economics based on maximizing debt and public private partnerships are fascists.  Together they are members of the Global Mafia Club/Progressives in both the RNC and DNC sitting in Congress and the administration.  Just listen to those who want open borders and the demise of America.  “In orders to save the planet, we must destroy capitalism,”  Maurice Strong, UN Environmental Programme.   Maurice made his money in OIL while he demonized oil.  No competition is allowed in a communist society.

Those who know history remember from the decline of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic that Communists learned quickly a funding source must be integrated into their communist plan or globalism can not succeed because the people who have given everything up, can no longer fund the give away projects promoted by the Left.  Wall Street joined with the Government on a crash course to “relieve” the American middle class of all equity.  The 2008 crash was designed to take the money, businesses through regulations and land through foreclosure, of the middle class in order to complete a wipe out using the manipulated word of “fairness.” Blocks were bought by Hedge Funds for pennies on the dollar.  They threw the owners out instead of making a deal.  The stimulus money Obama gave to the banks would have paid every mortgage in the US. Instead the Hedge Funds tore down and rebuilt SINGLE FAMILY HOMES into multi-use buildings with work on the first few floors while you live upstairs.  No car necessary to go to work. These complexes aka sustainable developments were empty for a long time until illegal immigration.. Homeless Americans live on the streets and in cars while illegals get a handout and an apartment.  Yet no one can figure out why our cities declined. Drugs and “mental illness” are the result of these criminal policies not the cause.  Follow the money.

People who rely on the government for handouts or freebies suffer from lack of confidence and lack of pride.  Word manipulation trains them to be satisfied, mediocre people with nothing to be proud of.  Rather than elevate the people to ownership, the Global Mafia tells them that pride is evil.  Proud people will rise up when something is worth protecting. When you have nothing to protect, there is nothing to be proud of. Schools now run by the Global Mafia indoctrinate pride is bad, Human Capital having massive debt is fine.  They never say that people with massive debt will never be able to own anything (the true goal of the Global Mafia). The same people who brought us the failed NCLB and Common Core are now promoting a Work Force Program.  Training IS NOT education.

Americans talking and acting together are the worst thing that can happen to The Global Mafia.  Why?  Simple: There are more of us than them.  The Global Mafia is very small. The Global Mafia is afraid of our large numbers and what will happen once we find out their game plan. Therefore, to beat anything, it is imperative that we communicate and become individuals not just members of a group. It is imperative we choose real people for office not those selected by the Global Mafia in the Democratic and Republican party. Ask the second question.

Then the biggest challenge:  We must stop talking to each other (preaching to the choir) and start working with the low information voters.

Why? They are unhappy and lack leadership.  70-80% are unhappy and don’t know what to do.

How? You must become a caring American individual and interact.  The simplest solution is always the best solution…

Solution for Action:

Goal:  Communication with low information voters.

Method: Let’s use their strategy.  Never let a crisis go to waste.

Find a crisis.  Pick something simple, non political like …

We have a crisis in America.  Americans are not being taught cursive writing in school. Talk about anything education Not Political.

Why is cursive important?

  1. Cursive helps eye hand coordination in young children and reinforces left brain/right brain connections.
  2. Your signature can never be duplicated. It is yours alone. To the Global Mafia People, the collective, are only bodies to work, not people able to make choices. They do not need a signature, individualism doesn’t count.  Print, make an X, no pride necessary.
  3. Most old historical documents, American, religious and family are in cursive. Imagine how the Constitution and Bill of Rights will change when no one can read it.

“People who can not read are slaves forever.” Fredrick Douglass, slave who became an advisor to Pres Lincoln (R).

Action: Can your group or you, individually, go to a local group or church and offer to teach cursive.  Together you can make a plan to bring cursive back to school by going to school board meetings. Doing things together bring respect and trust and will break barriers used to stereotype a group. Imagine the great conversations you all can have when you begin to talk and gain trust and respect.   You will break the racist barrier. You will find you have a lot in common.

This simple task will bring people together on an individual level. Individuals can gain trust of each other and will actually begin conversations.  Imagine if the last cursive activity was to read the original constitution.  While reading you get a chance to explain its value. When people learn liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness, they will step up with pride and protect America.  Only unity will make that happen.  United we stand, divided we fail.

I will not comply.

Will you?

©All rights reserved.

Face Masks: The Radical Leftist Symbol of Submission

/in , , , , , , , /by

Masks have been a part of societies for 9,000 years. The earliest masks were used for rituals and ceremonies. Later, they were used in hunting, feasts, wars, performances, theaters, fashion, sports, movies, and then as protection against medical and occupational hazards. Masks have become symbols for their various functions.

Different masks worn by different people have different motives. A masked bank robber is very different from a masked Halloween trick-or-treater. Masks are coverings that can also disguise messages. So it is with political masks.

The two most controversial political masks in America today are the Muslim niqab and the COVID19 face mask. What do these seemingly disparate face coverings have in common? Both are marketed as protective face coverings with the connotation of safety, both are worn with pride by their adherents, and both disguise a powerful political message of submission. The mask is the message.

Muslim women following supremacist, Islamic religious sharia law are subservient to their fathers, husbands, and brothers no matter where they live in the world, and no matter how protective equal rights laws for women are in the country where they reside. Sharia law does not recognize the authority of the United States Constitution.

Muslim women who embrace sharia law wear their niqabs with pride. They value their submission and, for them, wearing the face-covering is virtue signaling. For most Americans, the face mask worn by Muslim women is a detestable symbol of submission that violates American principles of equality and freedom. It is almost incomprehensible for Americans to understand these Muslim women without understanding that sharia law teaches the supremacy of Islam.

The 1991 Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum explains in precise detail the strategic goal for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. The plan is for settlement not assimilation. Settlement is another word for submission. In its own words:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

For decades the radical leftist Culture War on America has been attempting to collapse America from within and replace our constitutional republic with socialism. The leftist promise is that destroying free market capitalism and replacing it with socialism will provide social justice and income equality. The radical leftists have common cause with the Islamists to destroy America from within.

The leftists and the Islamists both have established educational wings to propagandize Americans toward their respective ideologies. They both have established violent paramilitary factions in the United States to terrorize the public and impose their ideologies when persuasion and propaganda are not enough. The Islamists have their jihadis and the radical leftists have ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter (BLM); all unapologetic domestic terrorists. Hawk Newsome, the president of the BLM of Greater New York movement, clarified his willingness to use any means necessary in a jaw-dropping June 23, 2020 interview with Fox News Martha MacCallum on “The Story.”

“You said ‘burn it down, it’s time,’” MacCallum told Newsome.

“I said if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right?” he replied.

The radical 2020 Democrat party platform kneels to both radical leftism and Islamism. Blue state governors, mayors, and local Democrat authorities are exploiting the coronavirus with COVID19 mask mandates to prolong the economic shutdown, prevent an economic recovery, and collapse the U.S. economy in hopes of defeating Trump in November.

Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s chief of staff, famously said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” The coronavirus outbreak was a bonanza for the radical left, an economic bioweapon unleashed by the communist Chinese designed to collapse Trump’s roaring economy. Political medicine from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the globalist-infested Center for Disease Control (CDC) has been deliberately exaggerating the threat of COVID19 to create panic and social chaos to destabilize the country in advance of the 2020 election.

The stunning June 19, 2020 article by Patrick Wood in Technocracy News, “The Miserable Pseudo-Science Behind Face Masks, Social Distancing And Contact Tracing,” exposes the entire hoax. Wood begins, “Once upon a time there was something called science. It included the discovery of truth about nature . . . Then certain other scientists and engineers rose up and made a discovery of their own. If true science was ever-so-slightly skewed and engineering principles were applied to society at large, then they could indeed use their ‘knowledge’ to dominate and control other people, groups, entire societies or even, heaven forbid, the entire planet. The first group pursued science. The second group pursued pseudo-science.”

Patrick Wood explains that pseudo-science is the principal domain of technocrats. The fraudulent predictive models that the WHO and the CDC relied on to terrify the public were developed using politically driven data. The acronym GIGO means garbage in garbage out – it describes with precision British scientist Neil Ferguson’s doomsday pandemic model. Ferguson’s Imperial College report predicted that 2.2 million Americans would die from the virus, that hospital beds would be overflowing, and that there would be a critical shortage of ventilators. The report was used by CDC globalists Fauci and Birx to persuade President Trump to shut down the U.S. economy. Ferguson’s model was also used by the radical leftist Democrat site COVID Act Now that posted the disinformation used by local and state officials in the U.S. to issue shelter-in-place mandates.

Ferguson retracted his wildly inaccurate model but the economic damage was done and the political hysteria continues. The equally fraudulent Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) report from University of Washington written by institute director Christopher Murray was used by Fauci and Birx to support more political medicine mandating lockdowns to close businesses, schools, and keep people from their right to assembly. The mitigation measures were not intended to flatten the curve, they were designed to flatten America. IHME is committed to globalism and the United Nations 17 sustainable goals.

Medical science does not warrant any of the wildly exaggerated projections or draconian measures, the pseudo-science of political medicine does.

Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population. What this means is that the pseudo-science of leftist “settled science” is being used to achieve the radical leftist political agenda of fundamentally transforming America. Islamists want to make America Muslim. Leftists want to make America socialist.

The Culture War on America is part of the overriding globalist war on American national sovereignty. The leftist, Islamist, globalist, Chinese communist axis participating in the war on America now has its own symbol disguised as public health – the COVID19 face mask. The mandated face mask represents political medicine disguised as medical science. Leftists wear their face masks with pride because, for them, it is virtue signaling.

For those Americans who value their freedom and individual rights the COVID19 face mask is the symbol of submission to radical leftism. It is almost incomprehensible for Americans to understand the radical leftist commitment to collapsing America without understanding that cultural Marxism teaches the supremacy of radical leftist socialism. A Washington Times article 8.22.2019 written by James Veltmeyer defines the issue.

“Cultural Marxism is the father of the Democratic Party’s identity politics and political correctness. It is the father of transgender insanity and racial polarization. It is the father of open borders and rights for illegal immigrants. And, yes, it is even the father of the anarchy and nihilism that gives rise to mass shooters and to Hollywood movies that portray hunting human beings for sport as ‘entertainment.’”

The enemies of America are exploiting public fear of death and dying for political gain. It is a colossal humanitarian hoax. Mandated masks, mandated social distancing, mandated prolonged business and school closures are sinister efforts to establish a new normal of submission in America. This is how the radical left intends to settle America!

COVID19 face masks are now the symbol of submission in the United States. Leftist Democrat governors, mayors, and local authorities mandating masks are presenting their mandates as altruistic. Joe Biden just announced that he would use his federal powers to force Americans to wear face masks if elected. The COVID19 face masks are radical leftist Democrat pseudo-science and virtue signaling designed for submission.

Say NO to settlement by Islamists. Say NO to settlement by radical leftists. Say NO to settlement by globalists. Say NO to settlement by Chinese communists. Say YES to freedom in our constitutional republic, the United States of America!

Take off your masks America and refuse to submit!

©All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Joe Biden says if elected, he would make masks mandatory

Tell Pornhub and Planned Parenthood that Black Lives Matter

/in , , , , , , , /by

Activists are wasting their time tearing down old statues. Abuse is happening here and now.

Over the last month, global protests have been drawing attention to the unjust treatment of minority communities. As an organisation and as a slogan Black Lives Matter has captured the world’s attention.

In America particularly, police departments are facing serious scrutiny in an effort to root out racial bias and corruption. The Minneapolis Police—whose officers were responsible for George Floyd’s unjust death—is even being disbanded.

Many have suggested an unbroken link between systemic injustice today and the Trans-Atlantic slave trade to which most black Americans trace their roots. But for all the talk about a slavery that was outlawed 150 years ago, there’s an eerie silence about the slavery that continues today.

Pornhub is the world’s largest pornographic website, receiving some 42 billion visits every year. Users can upload their own content and view that of others, resulting in a vast video library of rape, revenge porn, abuse and torture—including that of children.

Several Pornhub-linked kidnapping cases have recently made the news, such as 15-year-old Rose Kalemba. As a result, Pornhub has been forced to remove the offending content. But even after 118 confirmed cases of child abuse, Pornhub itself remains untouched as a sex trafficker’s dream, rewarding the most popular content with monetised ads.

The company recently took to Twitter to polish its halo. It declared, “Pornhub stands in solidarity against racism and social injustice,” and it encouraged followers to donate to anti-racist charities.

But the New York Post has called Pornhub out on its hypocrisy. An article by anti-porn campaigner Laila Mickelwait highlighted recent Pornhub content like a video entitled “I Can’t Breathe” that made use of search tags such as “George Floyd” and “choke-out”.

Mickelwait went on: “Countless other titles on Pornhub feature variations on the N-word and “white master”. Exploited black teens” and “black slave” are suggested search terms deliberately promoted by Pornhub to its users.”

If you would like to tell Pornhub that black lives matter, you can join a million others in signing the Trafficking hub petition. The petition’s goal is to shut down Pornhub and hold its executives accountable for aiding sex trafficking. (Click here to sign the petition).

Planned Parenthood is another corporate giant causing immense harm to minority communities. In fact, if you were on the hunt for a still-thriving organisation to “cancel” for its racist past, you couldn’t find a better candidate.

With unblinking irony, Planned Parenthood also tweeted its self-righteous indignation, saying, “We’re devastated, grieving, and outraged by violence against Black lives.” This, despite the fact that Planned Parenthood kills an estimated 250 unborn black Americans every day.

Planned Parenthood was founded by the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger, who had ties to the Ku Klux Klan. In a 1939 private letter, Sanger wrote, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” To this day, Planned Parenthood celebrates Sanger as a ‘woman of heroic accomplishments.’

And it continues to carry out her ambitions. The Guttmacher Institute, once Planned Parenthood’s research division, found that African-American women are five times more likely to choose abortion over white women. This data is used by Planned Parenthood with deadly effect.

In 2010, census statistics revealed that almost 80 percent of its surgical abortion clinics were within walking distance of African-American or Hispanic communities. Today, over one-third of Planned Parenthood’s 340,000 abortions are carried out on black babies, even though the black community makes up only 13 percent of America’s population.

As America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood receives over US$500 million in federal tax dollars. If you would like to take a practical stand against systemic racism and tell Planned Parenthood that black lives matter, you can join 700,000 others in signing Live Action’s petition to defund the abortion giant. (Click here to sign the petition).

There really is no point saying that black lives matter if we don’t actually mean it.

Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a teacher and freelance writer, writing for the Canberra Declaration and occasionally the Spectator Australia. He also blogs at kurtmahlburg.blog. More by Kurt Mahlburg.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The challenge of changing a mindset to save Chicago lives

‘My Back Pages’ — Bob Dylan’s protest song about protests

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

Gorsuch the Pharisee and Textualist Tomfoolery

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Supreme Court’s recent opinion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against “sex” discrimination offers protections for the “LGBT” groups has raised eyebrows and ire. But it’s not surprising: The decision’s author, Justice Neil Gorsuch, long ago made clear that he operates from false premises. One of these is what’s called “textualism,” which is not at all the same as originalism.

Conservatives also err, in my view, in claiming that Gorsuch has “redefined ‘sex.’” In reality, his ruling is instead based on a certain rationalization. Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, while essentially applauding Gorsuch’s lawyer-craft, explained it well.

“As applied to Title VII, the classic 1964 anti-discrimination law, the textualist idea is very simple,” he wrote June 15. “The law prohibits discrimination ‘on the basis of sex.’ To discriminate against somebody because of sexual orientation necessarily entails discriminating on the basis of sex. After all, if you’re discriminating against a man because he is attracted to men, you would not be discriminating against him if he were a woman who is attracted to men.”

“The same is true for transgender status,” he continued. “if [sic] you are discriminating against somebody for identifying with a gender that differs from their biological sex at birth, you are necessarily discriminating on the basis of sex — because you would not be discriminating against the person if they had the opposite biological sex.”

(Note: By this logic, bisexuals wouldn’t be protected because the behavior a person could be fired for — being attracted to both sexes — would be the same for both sexes. Although, some future judge will no doubt spin this, too.)

Now, realize that the above isn’t even necessarily dictated by textualism, the legal theory holding that a law’s application should be based on a plain reading of its text, as opposed to its framers’ original intent or some other guide. After all, there’s a difference between discriminating “on the basis of sex” and on the basis of sexual attraction or “gender identification.”

Consider: If an employer won’t hire anyone with same-sex sexual attraction, there is no “sex discrimination” because he will reject lesbians along with homosexuals (he only might be engaging in sex discrimination if he applied the “no same-sex sexual attraction” prohibition to only one sex).

Not only is the same true of so-called “transgenderism” — an employer could reject all people identifying as the sex they’re not — but there’s another factor: The business owner could simply be rejecting anyone who misrepresents himself.

Some may now respond that a man claiming womanhood really is a woman. But this proposition’s validity is irrelevant. The fact remains that the hypothetical employer is discriminating based on perceived misrepresentation, not sex. This is just as how an employer rejecting someone with “species dysphoria,” who claims to be a ferret, isn’t discriminating based on species, but possibly misrepresentation or concerns about the prospective hire’s mental stability. (Though Gorsuch would no doubt say that such discrimination is okay because the employer wouldn’t hire an actual ferret, either.)

Of course, some will still prefer Gorsuch’s argument. Yet this conflict and confusion merely illustrate how textualism doesn’t live up to its billing. Late Justice Antonin Scalia is known for pushing the theory (one of his great mistakes), which he did because in “his mind, textualism discouraged judges from using interpretation to make the law say something different from what the law actually said,” explained Feldman.

Yet while Scalia would no doubt disapprove of Gorsuch’s textual interpretation, this is yet another example of how there just is no simple formula for preventing judicial activism; a judge lacking intellectual honesty and philosophical soundness can always tendentiously spin a ruling.

This said, Gorsuch’s opinion might not have been rendered if he adhered to the only legitimate legal philosophy: originalism. As Justice Samuel Alito pointed out in his dissent, no one in 1964 even imagined that banning sex discrimination would include prohibitions against “homophobic” or “transphobic” discrimination; in fact, neither of these terms even existed, and “transgender” status hadn’t been conjured up yet.

By the way, Gorsuch essentially admitted as much, writing in his opinion that when “the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Moreover, he also rather haughtily insisted that “the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.”

Now, the contrast between textual tomfoolery and sound judicial theory can be illustrated with a simple analogy: 10-year-old twins Timmy and Oliver and five-year-old Malcolm are siblings. One day mom hears Malcolm crying wretchedly, investigates, and learns that the two older boys had been punching him.

After scolding the twins, the mother warns, “Now, stop hitting Malcolm! If you hit him again and I come in here and find him bawling, you’re gonna’ be in big trouble!”

Yet an hour later Malcolm is crying his eyes out, again. The mother learns that Oliver understood not to hurt his kid brother and that Timmy is the culprit. Instead of being contrite, however, Timmy says, “Mommy, you said not to hit Malcolm; you didn’t say anything about not choking him and twisting his arm…and that’s all I did!”

Then too-clever-by-half Timmy adds, “The limits of your imagination, mommy, are no reason to ignore your rule’s demands. Only what you said matters — and I’m entitled to the rule’s benefits!”

In the above analogy, Oliver is the originalist, understanding and accepting his mother’s command’s spirit. Timmy is the textualist, doing things not expressly forbidden by her rule’s language even while knowing it contravenes her intent.

The problem with this “philosophy” is that insofar as you don’t consider what was intended, you increase the chances of experiencing the unintended. Gorsuch’s approach is every bit as maddening as Timmy’s (because it’s the same), as it places an unrealistic burden on legislators. If their laws are to meet Gorsuch’s textualist standard for being applied as intended, the legislators must have godlike capabilities: They must see into the future so they can craft language covering every social innovation, bizarre fashion or collective insanity that may eventually, one day, manifest itself.

So it’s bad enough we have the “law of unintended consequences.” Now we have textualists turning the law of unintended consequences into a legal philosophy and legislating it from the bench.

I don’t know Gorsuch personally, but he wouldn’t be a very pleasant person to associate with if he were a Timmy the Textualist in everyday life. Would you thus conduct yourself, parsing every friend’s words to seek a loophole and essentially punishing him for not being a seer who speaks like Mr. Spock? You’d have few friends and deserve none.

Interestingly, Gorsuch and his fellow travelers aren’t the first textualists. Two-thousand years ago they were called Pharisees, a group of pseudo-intellectuals whom Jesus excoriated for following the letter of the law, but ignoring its spirit. It’s tragic that we’re back to that, but convenient for today’s Pharisees.

It is ironic, though, that in order to avoid abiding by the intent of laws from a half century ago, some today are resorting to a mistake from two millennia ago.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

©All rights reserved.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: ‘Black Lives Matter’ [Video]

/in , , , , , , /by

DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) – Planned Parenthood (PP) is the newest vocal supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement, despite the cognitive dissonance involved. The abortion giant has demonstrated no regard for human lives in general and black lives in particular.

At least two Planned Parenthood affiliates in different regions of the country are now publicly backing Black Lives Matter. Yet racial equality and respect for human life — particularly black lives — is exactly what Planned Parenthood is not concerned with, recognizes Stan Guthrie, author, minister, and contributing editor for Breakpoint, a Christian website whose content “cuts through the fog of relativism … with truth and compassion.”

Guthrie speaks for countless thinking people when figuratively scratching his head, he points out the clear hypocrisy.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon states:

Black and Brown communities in the United States have suffered murder, violence, trauma and overt and covert racism perpetrated by white people and white-led systems and institutions throughout our country’s entire history. This state-sanctioned violence and murder is not new, but it is intolerable and horrific and must stop. Black lives matter.

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast says:

The over-policing of black bodies extends far beyond the actions of individual police officers. It is in our workplaces, our schools, our public institutions. It is in our health care system. It is that same policing of black bodies that makes the promise of reproductive freedom unattainable for so many black people in this country.

The first, obvious contradiction is that Planned Parenthood kills preborn babies. That is a prime money-maker for the abortion giant.

According to Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report for 2018–2019, it committed 345,672 prenatal murders in the United States in fiscal year 2018. That means 1,768 babies every single day. Its approximately 3 million abortions since 2011 is 38% of all surgical abortions committed in the United States.

Black lives: ‘human weeds’ to ‘exterminate’

With regard to race, Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger.

“Birth control does not mean contraception indiscriminately practiced,” Sanger once said. “It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

Who she may have meant by “human weeds” was clarified in a letter of Dec. 10, 1939, to Clarence Gamble. Sanger explained the nature of her organization’s outreach to the African-American community, saying: “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Sanger also said in her writings that immigrants, the “unfit,” the “delinquent and dependent classes,” and the “feeble-minded” should be controlled, if not weeded out.

Contraception, in her mind, was a great tool for doing so. She said it is a “powerful weapon against national and racial decadence.” Ostensibly, Sanger wanted her Birth Control League, the precursor of Planned Parenthood, to use birth control as a weapon against racial minorities as well as the mentally and physically handicapped.

Black Lives Still Targeted

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood tends to target minorities in impoverished areas of the country. “In 2014, 36% of all abortions were performed on black women, who are just 13% of the female population,” reported Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal.

According to Illinois Right to Life and the 2010 Census, 79% of the Planned Parenthood surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of minority communities. And this is not without effect. In some cities, such as New York, black abortions outnumber black live births by thousands every year.

This is why groups such as Blacks for Life and BlackGenocide.org have sprung up to defend black babies from the abortion suction machine and black communities from the disproportionate number of babies lost each year due to abortion

As commentators note, Planned Parenthood and Black Lives Matter are certainly strange bedfellows.

RELATED ARTICLE: Vatican Hails BLM as ‘Non-Violent’

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

VIDEO: The Vortex — Take Their Money, Mr. President. Choke ’em off.

/in , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

The whole Washington, D.C. establishment (a.k.a., “the Swamp”) has gone completely in publicly to ensure President Trump does not remain president. General Colin Powell over the weekend added his voice to a growing chorus of Trump-haters within the Swamp to say he will not vote for Trump.

By the way, he added in an interview that he didn’t vote for him in 2016 either: So who cares what he thinks, really? And this is key: The U.S. hierarchy and especially its political arm is an active member of the D.C. Swamp. They have been for decades, and they hate Trump because it’s all being exposed.

It’s high time the Catholic Church in the United States loses its tax-exempt status. There are simply too many crooked shepherds who profit from the deal and who are not using the money they save to fulfill the Church’s mission. Accused homosexual bishops like D.C.’s Wilton Gregory — so gay that in Church circles he’s known as the African Queen — are enemies of Christ and His Church and uncover themselves more and more every day.

Gregory and the entire leadership of the U.S. hierarchy for decades has been fomenting revolution in politics, pretending to care for the poor. They care nothing for the poor, except to mobilize them and use them to keep the Party of Death in power, which in turn keeps giving the bishops money to keep the Swamp filled.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is a very active part of the D.C. Swamp, and that’s why the tax-exempt status needs to go away. You would be hard-pressed to find a more wicked, sinister cabal of liars and thieves — and that’s saying a lot in D.C.

The men who built the USCCB bureaucracy and who now keep it going developed secret pipelines to bring in homosexual men from South America and flood U.S. seminaries. They lied to the faithful, shredded documents, committed perjury, engaged in and/or covered up the rape of thousands of mostly teenage boys and they maintained their control to keep up these moral outrages partially through their tax-exempt status.

The Church as we see it in America today, in the hands of these corrupt shepherds, is little else than a crime syndicate that Donald Trump should break up. Major dioceses and archdioceses are sitting on enormous endowments and not telling the people they continue to soak. For example, the archdiocese of Detroit has an endowment in the hundreds of millions; yet it still applied for and received over $2 million in Wuhan economic-stimulus money.

Even rolling in that much cash, they still laid off a huge portion of staff and are now at the beginning of the most incredible shrinking of a diocese practically on record.

These thieves in miters have stashed away tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars collectively and yet still enjoy a tax-exempt status. For what? These Marxists work to undermine America and replace the nation-state system by ushering in a new world order, complete with its no-borders, globalist, save-the-planet, shrink-the-population, diabolical propaganda.

The latest example of their participation is D.C. Abp. Gregory’s quiet joining-of-forces to help destabilize President Trump by ordering his clergy to show up in cassocks at a protest in Lafayette Park yesterday, and then march on the White House at high noon.

There are a couple of issues here. Gregory hates cassocks, and the word is out in D.C. if you are a priest not to wear one around him, which is a little strange: You’d think he fancies a man in a frock. Second, the “Catholic protest” just happened, by sheer coincidence, out of the blue, to coincide with another leftist protest calling for the president to be deposed.

And the African Queen knows that the sight of priests dressed like priests mingled in with BLM and Antifa types and chanting and fist-pumping would potentially create a firestorm of TV news video as well as headlines like “Catholic Church Wants Trump Ousted.” And headlines like that would be little else than what the Marxist media has become so proficient in: fake news.

Authentic Catholics, as opposed to the ones lobotomized by bishops over the past 50 years, understand the stakes here. So too does Abp. Viganò, who published a letter to Trump saying essentially, “The moment has arrived, Mr. President. It’s good against evil, and you are the one in the Oval Office.”

Viganò also called gay Gregory a “false shepherd.” False shepherds run false churches that they poorly disguise as the true Church. But authentic Catholics can sniff out the smell of sulphur around this putrid lot in a heartbeat. Thousands of black Americans, most of them young men, have been gunned down in urban America — yet not a word about any of them.

Only 2% of black slayings came at the hands of police officers; so even if the police were all defunded, as Minneapolis is now saying it will, what about the other 98% of black Americans being killed? And what about the millions of black Americans who never make it past Planned Parenthood? That’s millions.

Why isn’t Wilton having his priests stampede the White House about all those black lives? Oh, wait — black babies have an ally in Donald Trump, so no need for a riot in cassocks.

Gay Gregory and all his brother Marxist bishops want Trump gone and are spinning the narrative that he’s to blame for all this. Inside operatives told Church Militant that the African Queen became enraged at the Knights of Columbus having invited Trump to the National Shrine and demanded they cooperate with his plan, ordering the local D.C. Knights to e-mail their pro-life list to try and get the troops mobilized to hit the streets.

President Trump, two things, please, for yourself and Catholics who are sick of the bishop tyranny:

  1. Turn off the spigot of funds flowing to the corrupt USCCB
  2. Get the Church’s tax-exempt status cancelled. They engage in politics, not religion.

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

VIDEO: World-Leading Infectious Disease Expert Explains Why Government Lockdowns Should End

/in , , , , , , /by

In 2010, The Atlantic said that Dr. John Ioannidis “may be one of the most influential scientists alive.”

The article, written by David H. Freedman, made it clear the Greek-American physician-scientist’s rising star stemmed in part from the fearlessness he demonstrated in challenging bad science in the medical research field.

“[Ioannidis is] what’s known as a meta-researcher, and he’s become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research,” Freedman wrote. “He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain—is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong.”

Today, Ioannidis is the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention at Stanford University. He has authored some of the most cited medical journal articles in history.

Ten years after his glowing profile in The Atlantic, however, Ioannidis finds himself in the crosshairs of media and medical professionals for doing what he’s always done: challenging science he believes is flawed. This time, however, Ioannidis is challenging medical findings of a virus that isn’t just deadly, but deeply controversial.

Ioannidis has become perhaps the leading medical voice against COVID-19 alarmism and government lockdowns.

It began with a March 17 article in Stat that suggested governments around the world were taking sweeping and potentially harmful actions to limit the spread of COVID-19 without sufficient data. Then came a May 5 white paper he authored which suggested COVID-19 was not nearly as deadly as initially feared, a claim later supported by an NPR report that cited research from Johns Hopkins University showing a fatality risk as low as 0.5 percent. Ioannidis’s latest research on the COVID fatality rate pegs the median COVID-19 fatality risk at 0.25 percent, much lower than previous estimates but still about two and a half times higher than the seasonal flu.

Ioannidis’s credentials might be impeccable, but his findings have not been without controversy.

In an impressive piece of medical journalism published at Undark.org, investigative journalist Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee of the Lown Institute detail the withering criticism Ioannidis has received from media and medical professionals alike.

Ioannidis appears unfazed by the attacks, which include (very thin) accusations that his study suffered from an undisclosed conflict of interest.

In the medical journal BMJ, Ioannidis recently explained why he believes government lockdowns should be lifted. (An opposing view is offered by Edward R. Melnick of the Yale Medical School.)

Even if covid-19 is far milder than feared, it can still devastate in specific settings. Massacres in overwhelmed hospitals with contaminated personnel and in nursing homes represent the lion’s share of deaths. Hospital preparedness, universal personnel screening, draconian infection control, and social distancing in these locations are indispensable.

However, blind lockdown of entire populations has questionable added benefits. Locking down healthy, no-risk people and transferring covid-19 patients to nursing homes was absurd. Proponents of “lockdown to flatten the curve” should acknowledge that this gains time for hospital preparedness but that most, if not all, covid-19 deaths will still happen when measures are relaxed—unless effective treatments and/or vaccines emerge. Moreover, the lockdown-to-flatten-the-curve rationale ignores seasonality and espouses 100 year old observational data from a 1918 pandemic with an infection fatality rate 100 times higher than covid-19.

Lockdowns have multiple components. Some, such as avoiding mass gatherings, may work; others may not. Some may even increase the number of covid-19 deaths—for instance, school closures may increase frail relatives’ exposure to children. But, regardless of the combination, lockdowns bring multifarious harms beyond those related to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, such as the consequences of health system dysfunction and extended harms eroding health, the economy, and society at large.

Lockdowns implemented during high infectious activity will force infective people to spend more time with frail relatives in cramped spaces. Low wage, essential workers adopt higher risks, and shelters for vulnerable homeless people become infection hotspots, while wealthy, healthy citizens get to stay at home. Stress may also affect our immune responses to respiratory infections. And, with the added horror spread by various media sources, lockdowns represent uniquely stressful experiences.

Under lockdown conditions many patients with acute, treatable conditions (such as coronary syndromes) avoid seeking care. This disruption may be seen in the excess deaths accruing so far in the covid-19 lockdown. Patients with cancer whose treatment is delayed have worse outcomes. And when patients avoid hospitals many health systems suffer financially, furlough personnel, and cut services. Covid-19 overwhelmed a few dozen hospitals, but covid-19 countermeasures have already jeopardized thousands of them.

Prolonged lockdowns fuel economic depression, creating mass unemployment. Jobless people may lose health insurance. Entire populations may witness decreased quality of life and mental health. Gun sales in the US have increased sharply since the lockdown began, with unpredictable consequences.

Underprivileged populations and those in need are hit harder by crises. People at risk of starvation worldwide have already exceeded one billion. We are risking increased suicides, domestic violence, and child abuse. Malaise and societal disintegration may also advance, with chaotic consequences such as riots and wars.

And how long a lockdown is enough? If we open now, will lockdown recur in autumn? Next year? Whenever authoritarianism so wishes? No dictatorship could imagine a better precedent for absolute control.

Lockdowns were desperate, defendable choices when we knew little about covid-19. But, now that we know more, we should avoid exaggeration. We should carefully and gradually remove lockdown measures, with data driven feedback on bed capacity and prevalence/incidence indicators. Otherwise, prolonged lockdowns may become mass suicide.

As Undark points out, Ioannidis’s opposition to lockdowns do not stem from libertarianism or a “Trumpian desire to benefit Wall Street,” but a longstanding skepticism of medical interventionism generally, which he says tends to be missed or downplayed by medical researchers.

Ioannidis may be no libertarian, but many of the lockdown themes he touches will sound familiar to FEE readers—deadly government policies that prohibited nursing homes from screening for COVID-19, soaring suicide, and widespread economic destruction resulting in millions of businesses wiped out and 40 million jobs lost.

While the costs of the lockdowns are apparent to all, less clear is how effective they have been in limiting the spread of the virus. A recent Bloomberg found “little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities.” Norway’s top health official recently stated the lockdowns probably were not necessary. Evidence from a recent JP Morgan report suggests most nations saw COVID infection rates fall after lockdowns were lifted.

These results make sense when one realizes, as studies have shown, that Americans were social distancing before lockdown orders were enforced. This fact brings to mind a quote from Nobel laureate economist F.A. Hayek.

“This is not a dispute about whether planning is to be done or not,” Hayek wrote in The Use of Knowledge in Society. “It is a dispute as to whether planning is to be done centrally, by one authority for the whole economic system, or is to be divided among many individuals.”

Hayek’s point was that centralized planning tends to be irrational because central planners lack the knowledge to make rational decisions. We mustn’t forget that human beings by nature and self-interest will take reasonable steps to protect themselves from a deadly virus. Humans manage risk every single day, and each does so possessing and processing more local knowledge than any central planner can possess.

Government officials no doubt were acting in good faith when they ordered lockdowns, but by removing choices from individuals, businesses, and other organizations they committed what appears to be one of the most costly and ultimately lethal blunders in modern history.

It’s not too late to learn from the mistake. A first step toward that end would be to admit that John Ioannidis is right: The government lockdowns must end.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.

Bylines: The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

He previously served in editorial roles at The History Channel magazine, Intellectual Takeout, and Scout. He is an alumni of the Institute for Humane Studies journalism program, a former reporter for the Panama City News Herald, and served as an intern in the speechwriting department of George W. Bush.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NPR: “Mounting Evidence” Suggests COVID Not As Deadly as Thought. Did the Experts Fail Again?

COVID-19 Lockdowns are Neither Necessary, nor Scientific, nor Helpful

Selective Social-Distancing Rules Are One of the Great Scams in American Life

Why Non-distanced Social and Commercial Interactions Have Resumed So Quickly

RELATED VIDEO: Multiple Scientists:  C0R0NAVlRUS Altered in Lab to Better Attach to Humans

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

Gorsuch Helps Transform the Supreme Court Into the Supreme Legislature on LGBT Rights

/in , , , , , , /by

In what dissenting Justice Samuel Alito called one of the most “brazen abuse[s]” of the Supreme Court’s authority, a six-member majority of the court led by Justice Neil Gorsuch has rewritten Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the definition of “sex.”

Why bother trying to pass the proposed Equality Act when you can get the justices to make law for you?

Title VII prohibits an employer from failing or refusing “to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Gorsuch—joined by the four liberal justices, along with Chief Justice John Roberts—decided that employment decisions that take any account of an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity necessarily entail discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which was combined with two other cases, Gorsuch wrote that the straightforward application of the terms in Title VII, according to their ordinary public meaning at the time of its enactment, means that an employer violates the law when it intentionally fires an individual based in part on sex.

In a logical and legal leap, Gorsuch then argued that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, since those concepts are related to sex.

Thus, Gorsuch reasoned, it means the employer is treating individuals differently because of their sex. An employer cannot escape liability by showing that it treats men and women comparably as groups. The employer has violated the law even if it subjects all male and female homosexual and transgender employees to the same treatment.

Gorsuch dismissed as irrelevant the historical fact that none of the legislators who passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 would have ever expected or contemplated that Title VII’s ban on employment discrimination on the basis of sex would apply to a man hired by a funeral home who then told his new employer, the R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Home, that he planned to “live and work full-time as a woman.”

That was one of the three cases before the court. That provision of the 1964 law was intended to stop the blatant employment discrimination rampant against women at that time.

The majority opinion by Gorsuch upending more than five decades of prior precedents was only 33 pages long. Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, filed a blistering dissent in which he said that “there is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.” He pointed out that the majority’s claim that it is “merely enforcing the terms of the statute” is “preposterous.”

As Alito undisputedly says, “if every single American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation—not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time.”

The majority tries to “pass off its decision” as just an application of the term “sex” in Title VII, claiming it is applying the textualism championed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But according to Alito, that claim and the majority’s opinion “is like a pirate ship.” He added:

It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that courts should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

Alito said that the majority’s “arrogance” is “breathtaking,” since “there is not a shred of evidence that any Member of Congress interpreted the statutory text that way when Title VII was enacted.”

Neither “sexual orientation,” nor “gender identity” appear on the list of five specified grounds for discrimination in Title VII, and the majority’s “argument is not only arrogant, it is wrong,” he wrote.  The terms “sex,” “sexual orientation,” and “gender identity” are “different concepts,” and neither of the two latter terms are “tied to either of the biological sexes.”

Alito is, of course, entirely correct, as one of us pointed out in a recent article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

And, of course, Congress knew that “sex” didn’t include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Alito recalled that there have been numerous bills introduced in Congress over the past 45 years to amend the law and add those terms, but they all failed.

The majority is “usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches” of government and has taken the latest congressional bill on this topic and “issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also filed a dissenting opinion, in which he wrote that “this case boils down to one fundamental question:  Who decides?”

The issue is whether Title VII “should be expanded to prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation,” he wrote, adding that responsibility “belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.”

Kavanaugh lauded the “extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit” of the gay and lesbian community for working “hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law.”  But, he added, under separation of powers, “it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII.”

Alito made it clear that the “updating desire to which the Court succumbs no doubt rises from humane and generous impulses.” But the “authority of this Court is limited to saying what the law is.”

In their dissents, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh got it right, and the majority got it wrong. The word “sex”— still today as when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964—refers to our biological reality as male or female. It doesn’t refer to our sexual orientations or malleable gender identities as some see it.

If those terms were contained within Title VII, there would have been no need for Congress to repeatedly try to amend the law to add sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

In an act of judicial activism, a majority of the Supreme Court has simply legislated from the bench and amended the statute itself.

Congress has not legislated such an outcome, and it was wrong for the court to usurp lawmakers’ authority by imposing such an extreme policy on our nation without the consent of the governed.

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.Twitter: .

Ryan T. Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research.Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

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

The Destructive Coronavirus Agenda

/in , , , , , , , /by

Is there an agenda in which Covid-19 has a role?  And if so, what is that agenda?

Let’s discuss the New World Order and Covid-19.  World government, i.e., the New World Order is part and parcel of this virus.  According to Arthur Thompson, CEO of the John Birch Society, “It is a steppingstone to world order.” It definitely fits, and plays into the globalist’s modus operandi.

One of the left’s standard procedures or tactics for bringing about change is by using an existing issue to manufacture crises.  If there isn’t an issue which can be used, one can always be produced that will serve the purpose.

The way this begins to play-out, the issue is brought to the surface by propaganda agents, which is currently recognized as “Fake News.” Many instances will be reported as evidence of the dire consequences people will be confronted with if remedial action is not immediately forthcoming.

At this point the solution planners, i.e., the ones who planned it all before the start, will surface with the solution to the issue. Invariably, however, the result will always be more control and less freedom for the people.

This is only one example of how the proponents of change are able to incrementally destroy our society and replace it with a system that is diametrically opposed to individual liberty and independence.

It is quite evident that the forces behind the drive for global control, or world government, for some time, have planned to use something like the coronavirus to advance their plans for establishing a Global one World Government.

Dr. Anthony Fauci

Dr. Anthony Fauci, is an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, within the National Institutes of Health.  He has been closely connected to the World Health Organization (WHO) for many years, and is a good friend of the Director, Dr. Tedros Adhanom whose main advisor is none other than Dr. Ezekiel Immanuel, the man who included “death panels” in Obamacare.  In 2015, Bill Gates forecast a coming pandemic, and in 2017, Anthony Fauci predicted a pandemic for President Trump during a speech at Georgetown University, when he said, “No doubt Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency.”  (Dr. Fauci actually wrote adoring letters to Hillary Clinton after her Benghazi testimony and for years prior to that he had worked with Ted Kennedy on HIV/AIDS.)

Dr. Fauci was vaulted into prominence at the White House by Covid-19 Task Force leader, Mike Pence. He was made our infectious disease specialist in charge of our defense against the pandemic that he knew was going to happen, and quite possibly, because of the NIH’s grants to the Wuhan Lab, had been in on the planning.

The Goal is Control

The John Birch Bulletin reports that there are many examples of seminars, reports, and studies by globalists in the last few years that indicate they meant to use a pandemic to start the process of permanent control on a worldwide basis. It includes many of the people within the American government health community, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who has been seen daily at White House briefings and on the mainstream media.

The Birch bulletin stated, “Some of these studies have been in partnership with the Chinese Communists. The Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the China Scholarship Council, and the Natural Science Foundation of China have been cooperating with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute of Health in studies connected to pandemics.”  Dr. Fauci sits on the boards of many of these American organizations.

When you are cooking up a big mulligan stew, it attracts many participants. The high-sounding titles of the many entities shield the character and proclivities of many of those involved. For example, in studies connected to pandemics, why would the National Science Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institute of Health be interested and involved in the studies of interest to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Chinese Communists? The answer is revealing.

Following is a video of Bill Gates being charged with crimes against humanity in a session of the Italian Parliament. The legislator is speaking in Italian but subtitles are in English.

Bill Gates

James Corbett’s fourth installment of his series on Bill Gates examines Gates’ youth, family history, business strategies, and surprising personal connections (Jeffery Epstein for example).  Altogether, they reveal a disturbing picture of Gates’ rise to fame, fortune, and power. Of particular interest is the fact that his banker father was the head of Planned Parenthood and that the family was connected to a group of wealthy intellectuals who called themselves “Eugenicists.” They advocated so-called public-health programs to sterilize those who are considered by the elite to be unworthy of procreation.

This was the same program that was applied by Hitler to create a super race in Nazi Germany. After the fall of the Nazi regime, American eugenicists needed to distance themselves from Hitler’s sterilization program, so they changed their vocabulary. Eugenicists henceforth were called Population Control. This finally connects the dots between present vaccine design and the Gates’ life-long support of population control.

I personally believe that his population control support goes much deeper than just sterilization of the unfavorable.

According to James Corbett, Gates is generally portrayed as a kindly philanthropist who generously funds projects to improve health and fight poverty. As shown in this report however, the image and the reality are far different. The reality is that Gates, throughout his entire career, has been obsessed with the idea that the human population needs to be drastically reduced and that any means to this end is acceptable, including the creation of vaccines to sterilize people but offered to them as a defense against disease.

Vaccines

With the extreme scare tactics employed regarding Covid-19, we most likely are being set-up.  The development of a vaccine that will meet Gates’ specifications is being done. Gates saw the potential for using vaccines for yet another hidden purpose, for injecting microchips and data tattoos into the skin that, in addition to pushing pharmaceutical concoctions into the blood stream, also embed digital data that can be read by scanners to identify every person on the planet.  Just think what else can be done with this technology. Link

Thomas Jefferson rightly stated, “When the people fear the government – there is tyranny.  “When the government fears the people – there is liberty.”

We are definitely at the point at which the people fear the government. Why? Because the government, for all practical purposes has been taken over by hordes of reprobates, those who God has destined for damnation. They have no regard for the feelings, the rights, or the total well-being of anyone other than themselves, or those who support them.

Bill Gates is obsessed with the idea that the human population of the earth should be drastically reduced and any means to this end is acceptable.

Our Supreme Court supports this.  According to G. Edward Griffin, in Need to Know, attorney Alan Dershowitz says we have no constitutional protection against being forcibly vaccinated because no one has a right to spread a deadly disease.  The Court contends that the state has an obligation to use force, if necessary, to protect the lives of its citizens against the threat of a deadly disease.  Totally and completely unconstitutional to God given freedoms.

This, supposedly, is a proper position, because the defense of life is one of the few proper functions of the just state, but there is no defense of the unborn, neither is there defense of the elderly. The problem is that this position is justified only if the deadly threat is real and not staged as a political ploy, and those who are staging the hoax are the ones who will decide if it is real.  Even the polio vaccines and sugar cubes of the 60s were unnecessary…polio was on its way out, but they continued their damning vaccines … vaccines they knew were grown on monkey kidneys and gave the recipients soft tissue cancers.

Those who challenge them will be imprisoned for spreading false information that endangers public health and safety. Furthermore, in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts the court said that the threat doesn’t even need to be real if those making the decision believe it is. That part of the ruling provided a loophole big enough to drive a truck through because it allows political criminals to escape punishment simply by claiming that they had bad advice. (All this per the comments of G. Edward Griffin)

Orwell’s 1984

We have arrived in Orwell’s 1984, and from the “Robespierre Public Safety ruling during the French Revolution, in which 25,000 Frenchmen were beheaded by the guillotine for acts against the ruling.  There is no guarantee history won’t repeat itself, especially with America’s history daily being destroyed by anarchists.

I believe that during my lifetime, many of the members of the Supreme Court were people who had been turned over to a reprobate mind, otherwise they could not have ruled as they did in so many cases.

In my previous article, Part 10 of The Path to Understanding, I said that Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on the 5 to 4 ruling by the Supreme Court on the same-sex marriage case stated in his opinion that “gay people” have a fundamental right to marriage. Implicit in this statement is a veiled assertion that this right comes from God. Whether he and the other four justices who concurred in the ruling are aware of it or not, the reference to rights that are fundamental is a reference to God and His authority.

And then, there are all the pro-abortion rulings which many members of the court from 1973 to today will have to answer for. But they will have no answer – for there isn’t one – they will have to face the consequences at the Great White Throne judgment.

Many people have ridiculed scripture and the Great White Throne Judgment. They have laughed and made jokes concerning it. I can see in my mind’s eye that when they approach the throne of God, He says to them, “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

Conclusion

What I’ve written is only the tip of the iceberg relative to what we are being set-up for; the complete regimentation of society in which all individuals will act or react in unison with all others.

It is to prepare us for the future as world citizens. We will then do everything by the numbers; no one will have thoughts, or make comments that do not coincide with instructions passed down from the rulers.

Look at all the people wearing masks even after scientific reports have said that masks are completely useless and of no benefit whatever. The sheeple have complied.  It is part of the scenario to establish the national mind-set that we are in crises that all people must be involved in for us to survive, despite the fact that fewer people have perished from Covid than perish from seasonal flu.

Next up, the corruption and cover-up of dangerous vaccines where a doctor is being threatened for exposing the truth of this agenda and the Covid-19 conspiracy.  Link

©All rights reserved.

Memories of eugenics president erased from USC campus

/in , , , , , /by

‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ Well, maybe.

The past week has seen statues and monuments whose subjects were linked to racism defaced or destroyed in the UK, UK and Australia. The memory cleansing movement also reached the University of Southern California (USC), with a slightly different twist.

The USC President, Carol Folt, swiftly removed the name and bust of her one of her predecessors, Rufus Von KleinSmid, from a prominent historic building on the campus. She was responding to years of agitation to expunge memorials to Von KleinSmid.

In his day, Von KleinSmid was a prominent figure in the United States. He began his career as a professor of education and psychology. In 1914 he became president of the University of Arizona, and moved from there to USC in 1921. He was president of USC for 25 years until 1947.

On his watch, USC experienced a huge expansion and slowly became the major university that it is today. Von KleinSmid was awarded a National Institute of Social Sciences Gold Medal in 1942 and was honoured by 20 national governments for his achievements.

Unfortunately, USC’s president was also an ardent eugenicist. He co-founded the Human Betterment Foundation in 1928, a Pasadena-based think-tank which promoted compulsory sterilization for the improvement of the species. Dr Folt described him as “an active supporter of eugenics [whose] writings on the subject are at direct odds with USC’s multicultural community and our mission of diversity and inclusion.”

There’s no doubt that Von KleinSmid’s views are not acceptable in polite company nowadays. A brief glance at a pamphlet which he wrote in 1913 yields such gems as:

We must all agree that those who, in the nature of the case, can do little else than pass on to their offsprings the defects which make themselves burdens to society, have no ethical right to parenthood. To deny them this privilege is, in the language of John Harris, “no infringement of liberty, it is a curtailment of unbridled license which is a disgrace to our civilization (?) and to our vaunted Christianity. ”

Or

The average worth of the individual to society is constantly lowered because of both the lack of productiveness among the worthy, and the fecundity of the defective. There can be no question of the outcome of the tragedy when society must depend finally upon an average ability too feeble to stand upon its own feet. It is estimated that one million of our population are incarcerated in public institutions, while three times that many, through their own incapability, pull a dead weight against society’s progress.

So there’s no point in denying that Von KleinSmid was a eugenicist, although he could argue in his defense that progressive American intellectuals before World War II shared his views — people like birth control activist Margaret Sanger, African-American rights activist W. E. B. Du Bois, inventor Alexander Graham Bell, botanist Luther Burbank, President Theodore Roosevelt, Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr and others too numerous to list here.

This is just a small incident in the wider movement to purge the US of racism. But it raises a few questions. Von KleinSmid’s sentiments are echoed every day by gynaecologists advising pregnant mothers to abort their Down syndrome child. In fact, a discrete investigation at the USC Keck School of Medicine might be in order if the university wants to purge itself of eugenics.

Isn’t it better to ask how eugenics has evolved rather than to expunge it from the public record? And damnatio memoriae (the Roman habit of rubbing out inscriptions and beheading statues) seems an odd way to obliterate interest in eugenics, which actually seems to be growing by leaps and bounds.

As we all have heard many times, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

Interestingly, this is the best-known maxim of the Spanish-American philosopher, novelist and Harvard professor George Santayana – who was — yes, you guessed it — a eugenicist! “Some races are obviously superior to others,” he wrote in his highly praised five-volume 1906 book The Life of Reason. It figures: all that remembering stuff corrupts the soul.

So what do we do now?

Here’s a suggestion. Forget it; forget everything. Just make it up as we go along. That way, when we do end up repeating the atrocities of the past, no one will notice.

Michael Cook

Michael Cook is the editor of MercatorNet More by Michael Cook

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

‘Harry Potter’ author explains why trans demands are bogus

/in , , , , , , /by

The author of the Harry Potter series has ignited a firestorm on Twitter over her ‘transphobic’ views.

Skepticism about allowing teenagers to transition to a different gender came from an unexpected source lastweek: J.K. Rowling, the author of the fabulously successful Harry Potter series. She had been provoked by a Twitterstorm over her tweet mocking a Devex headline, “Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate”. “People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people,” she wrote. “Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?” She published an extraordinarly clear and informative open letter on her website, which we are republishing here.

This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity.

For people who don’t know: last December I tweeted my support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who’d lost her job for what were deemed ‘transphobic’ tweets. She took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law. Judge Tayler ruled that it wasn’t.

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media. On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself, but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.

Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Berns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called cunt and bitch and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.

What I didn’t expect in the aftermath of my cancellation was the avalanche of emails and letters that came showering down upon me, the overwhelming majority of which were positive, grateful and supportive. They came from a cross-section of kind, empathetic and intelligent people, some of them working in fields dealing with gender dysphoria and trans people, who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding. They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

What are TERFs?

I’d stepped back from Twitter for many months both before and after tweeting support for Maya, because I knew it was doing nothing good for my mental health. I only returned because I wanted to share a free children’s book during the pandemic. Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all – as every woman involved in this debate will know – TERF.

If you didn’t already know – and why should you? – ‘TERF’ is an acronym coined by trans activists, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In practice, a huge and diverse cross-section of women are currently being called TERFs and the vast majority have never been radical feminists. Examples of so-called TERFs range from the mother of a gay child who was afraid their child wanted to transition to escape homophobic bullying, to a hitherto totally unfeminist older lady who’s vowed never to visit Marks & Spencer again because they’re allowing any man who says they identify as a woman into the women’s changing rooms. Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people, institutions and organisations I once admired, who’re cowering before the tactics of the playground. ‘They’ll call us transphobic!’ ‘They’ll say I hate trans people!’ What next, they’ll say you’ve got fleas? Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).

So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?

Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.

Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.

Protecting young women

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.

Most people probably aren’t aware – I certainly wasn’t, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

The same phenomenon has been seen in the US. In 2018,  American physician and researcher Lisa Littman set out to explore it. In an interview, she said:

‘Parents online were describing a very unusual pattern of transgender-identification where multiple friends and even entire friend groups became transgender-identified at the same time. I would have been remiss had I not considered social contagion and peer influences as potential factors.’

Littman mentioned Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram and YouTube as contributing factors to Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, where she believes that in the realm of transgender identification ‘youth have created particularly insular echo chambers.’

Her paper caused a furore. She was accused of bias and of spreading misinformation about transgender people, subjected to a tsunami of abuse and a concerted campaign to discredit both her and her work. The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it. However, her career took a similar hit to that suffered by Maya Forstater. Lisa Littman had dared challenge one of the central tenets of trans activism, which is that a person’s gender identity is innate, like sexual orientation. Nobody, the activists insisted, could ever be persuaded into being trans.

The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’

The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people.  The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette’s description of herself as a ‘mental hermaphrodite’ and Simone de Beauvoir’s words: ‘It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.’

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it’s fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

Misogyny ascendant

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much.  It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.

But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.

On a personal note

Which brings me to the fifth reason I’m deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism.

I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor. This isn’t because I’m ashamed those things happened to me, but because they’re traumatic to revisit and remember. I also feel protective of my daughter from my first marriage. I didn’t want to claim sole ownership of a story that belongs to her, too. However, a short while ago, I asked her how she’d feel if I were publicly honest about that part of my life, and she encouraged me to go ahead.

I’m mentioning these things now not in an attempt to garner sympathy, but out of solidarity with the huge numbers of women who have histories like mine, who’ve been slurred as bigots for having concerns around single-sex spaces.

I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made. My perennial jumpiness is a family joke – and even I know it’s funny – but I pray my daughters never have the same reasons I do for hating sudden loud noises, or finding people behind me when I haven’t heard them approaching.

If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity.  I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

Late on Saturday evening, scrolling through children’s pictures before I went to bed, I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation – and reacted to what I felt was degrading language about women. I spoke up about the importance of sex and have been paying the price ever since. I was transphobic, I was a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death. You are Voldemort said one person, clearly feeling this was the only language I’d understand.

Defying trans activists

It would be so much easier to tweet the approved hashtags – because of course trans rights are human rights and of course trans lives matter – scoop up the woke cookies and bask in a virtue-signalling afterglow. There’s joy, relief and safety in conformity. As Simone de Beauvoir also wrote, “… without a doubt it is more comfortable to endure blind bondage than to work for one’s liberation; the dead, too, are better suited to the earth than the living.”

Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.

The one thing that gives me hope is that the women who can protest and organise, are doing so, and they have some truly decent men and trans people alongside them. Political parties seeking to appease the loudest voices in this debate are ignoring women’s concerns at their peril. In the UK, women are reaching out to each other across party lines, concerned about the erosion of their hard-won rights and widespread intimidation. None of the gender critical women I’ve talked to hates trans people; on the contrary. Many of them became interested in this issue in the first place out of concern for trans youth, and they’re hugely sympathetic towards trans adults who simply want to live their lives, but who’re facing a backlash for a brand of activism they don’t endorse. The supreme irony is that the attempt to silence women with the word ‘TERF’ may have pushed more young women towards radical feminism than the movement’s seen in decades.

The last thing I want to say is this. I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

This letter, originally titled “J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues“, has been republished from her website.

COLUMN BY

J.K. Rowling

J.K. Rowling is best-known as the author of the bestselling Harry Potter series of seven books, published between 1997 and 2007. The enduringly popular adventures of Harry, Ron and Hermione have gone on… More by J.K. Rowling

RELATED VIDEO: CBC Kids calls JK Rowling “transphobic” in show for ages 6+: Andrew Lawton with Ezra Levant

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