June is LGBTQ Pride Month: So What Are They Proud of?

I have read on Twitter comments by many who question why we have an annual gay pride month. This is a question deserving of an answer.

Who started the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride Month?

According to the Library of Congress website:

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride Month is currently celebrated each year in the month of June to honor the 1969 Stonewall Uprising in Manhattan. The Stonewall Uprising was a tipping point for the Gay Liberation Movement in the United States. In the United States the last Sunday in June was initially celebrated as “Gay Pride Day,” but the actual day was flexible.

The Law Library of Congress has compiled guides to commemorative observations, including a comprehensive inventory of the Public Laws, Presidential Proclamations and congressional resolutions related to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender and Queer Pride Month.

Former Presidents Clinton and Obama issued proclamations related to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Pride Month.

President Trump on May 31st, 2019 tweeted:

As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month and recognize the outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great Nation, let us also stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals….on the basis of their sexual orientation. My Administration has launched a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality and invite all nations to join us in this effort!

What are gays supposed to be proud OF?

In a June 6, 2011 Scientific American article titled “Why I’m Not Proud of Being Gay” Jessie Bering wonders, “I’m particularly interested in knowing what it is, exactly, that I’m supposed to be proud of.”

What is pride? Bering used the below Oxford English Dictionary definitions:

pride n. A high, esp. an excessively high, opinion of one’s own worth or importance which gives rise to a feeling or attitude of superiority over others; inordinate self-esteem.

pride n. Arrogant, haughty, or overbearing behaviour, demeanour, or treatment of others, esp. as exhibiting an inordinately high opinion of oneself.

Bering wrote:

In fact, a team of University of British Columbia psychologists led by Jessica Tracy would note that the foregoing definitions of pride are actually referring to a particularly ancient, evolutionarily derived subtype, which they refer to as hubristic pride. Tracy and her colleagues have argued that hubristic pride evolved to promote and sustain dominance, with the emotional engines of conceit and arrogance motivating individuals to scale the social hierarchy, which translates to genetic fitness. Laboratory participants induced to feel hubristic pride display increased aggression, hostility, and manipulation—all tactics of a tooth-and-nail pathway to social dominance that is based primarily on fear rather than respect. It’s not terribly surprising, in this light, that individuals who are more prone to exhibiting hubristic pride tend also to be more disagreeable, neurotic, narcissistic, are less conscientious and have a history of poor relationships and mental health problems. [Emphasis added]

Is the LGBTQ community suffering from hubristic pride?

Bering believes not when he wrote:

After all, these are people that have been “culturally victimized” by an overwhelmingly oppressive heterosexist society, one that has systematically devalued and derided them as deviants for as long as they can remember. Developing in such a society is emotionally crippling and poisonous to one’s self-esteem; it’s not exactly a recipe for creating hubris and an inflated ego.

Bering offhandedly dismisses the beliefs of the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism (Genesis 19:1-7), Christianity (Romans 1:24-28) and Islam (Al-Mustadrak 2/375), concerning sodomy and pride. IslamWeb.net notes this about pride and arrogance:

Pride and Arrogance:

Allah, Almighty, Says (what means): “I will turn away from My Ayaat (verses of the Quran) those who behave arrogantly on the earth, without a right, and (even) if they see all the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons signs, revelations, etc.), they will not believe in them…” [Quran; 7:146] and (what means) “… truly He likes not the proud.” [Quran; 16:23]

Bering stated,

“These definitions clearly sit astride religious notions of pride being one of the Seven Deadly Sins . To many Christians, pride is the worst sin of all because placing oneself above others conflicts with spiritual egalitarianism. From a scientific perspective, at least, we can safely dismiss the God-hewn conjectures of pride being essentially evil, since there is no evil in essence, and there almost certainly is no God .

Are there objective moral values?

In an article published by BeThinking.org titled “Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?” Peter S. Williams notes:

The most discussed moral argument for God’s existence is currently the argument concerning the ontological basis for objective moral values:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore, God exists.

[ … ]

Francis J. Beckwith observes how “our experience indicates that moral obligation … is deeply connected to our obligations toward other persons.” I have moral obligations, but since I can’t be obligated by anything non-personal (e.g. the evolutionary history of my species), I must be obligated by something personal. Since there are objective moral obligations that transcend all finite persons (or groups thereof), there must therefore be a transcendent personal reality to whom we are most fundamentally obligated.

Read more.

Laws are based upon objective moral values such as: murder is morally wrong and therefore must be punished. So too are the seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. Each leads to breaking the moral values (laws) created by mankind over the millennia to prevent immoral values from becoming cultural norms.

Billions of people have faith and believe there is a monotheistic God. Jews, Christians and Muslims alike hold this faith and belief.

New Questions.

Since 1969 there is growing scientific evidence that homosexuality leads to serious health problems. According to EchoHealthAlliance.org:

That virus, commonly known as HIV, is the defining pandemic of our time. More than 35 million people have been killed by the virus to date.

Seeing what is happening today there are new questions that the LGBTQ community must answer.

  1. Are gays proud of what they have done to the Catholic Church?
  2. Are gays proud of what they have done to the Boy Scouts?
  3. Are gays proud of what they have done to a baker who didn’t bake them a wedding cake?
  4. Are gays proud of the annual march in Boston dressed in revealing clothing and performing sexual acts in public, in front of children?

Given what has happened since 1969, the question: What are gays proud of?, is still relevant.

Conclusion

The LGBTQ community must regain its objective moral obligations to society.

RELATED ARTICLES:

MassResistance mothers expose what really happens to children at LGBT “Youth Pride” events

Vermont Poised to Let Kids, Not Parents, Make Gender Decisions

Transgenderism and Perfect Freedom

Transgender Surgery Isn’t the Solution

The Most Cited Study In The Transgender Athlete Debate Is Bad Science

MassResistance activists help stop reparative therapy bans in state legislatures across the country

WARNING: The dangers of ‘negative identification’ and the tyranny of blaming others for what you are doing

I came across a very insightful clip of Jamie Glazov speaking about “negative identification.” Please watch:

I found this clip profound in that it explains the sadistic nature we are seeing played out today globally. Rape, incest, sodomy, hate, lies, torture and murder are headline news every day.

In my column Democratic Party Candidates for President Are Promoting the Seven Deadly Sins I noted:

As the Democratic field of candidates for president expands we are beginning to see what policies they are promoting. As we read their public statements of things that they promise they will do if elected it brought to mind that they fit into neat categories. These categories are the the Seven Deadly Sins.

The Seven Deadly Sins are: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Laziness, Wrath, Envy and Pride. Each of these can lead to a state of self negative identification.

Another outcome of those who embrace one or more of the Seven Deadly Sins is “projection.’ Projection is, “a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.”

What we are seeing is words thrown about at the highest level of our government and lowest parts of our street culture that blame others for what one actually does. Whites calling other whites “supremacist”, blacks calling other black “Uncle Tom” because they hold conservative political views and socialists calling others Nazis, when in fact the Nazis were socialists.

As I have written these Seven Deadly Sins have now become public policy, at least in one political party in the United States. Here’s the list:

  • Lust – to have an intense desire or need. Each of the candidates for president has a lust for power over the masses. This lust for power (big government) is demonstrated by the turn of Democrats toward “Democratic Socialism.” In a 1989 television interview Senator Bernie Sanders described himself as a “socialist.” As the author of ‘From a “Race of Masters” to a “Master Race”: 1948 to 1848‘ A.E. Samaan wrote “Democratic Socialism devolves into totalitarian Socialism and eventually into full on Communism as people resist statism.”
  • Gluttony – excess in eating and drinking. Democrats work hard to portray the Republican Party, and President Trump, who support the free market system as gluttony. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said in 2015, “Let me say a word about that. You are looking at a candidate who does not represent the agenda of corporate America. Who does not represent the agenda of the billionaire class.” According to Celebrity Net Worth, as of 2017, Sanders is worth an estimated $2 million. According to Business Insider, “Sanders reportedly owns three homes, including a four-bedroom house in Chittenden County, Vermont, that he bought with his wife, Jane, for $405,000 in 2009.” Senator Sanders is considered one of the poorest of those running for president. For example, according to News Week Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, “O’Rourke had a net worth of about $9 million in 2015…O’Rourke also married into wealth. The woman he married in 2005, Amy Hoover Sanders, is the daughter of real estate tycoon William Sanders, whom The New York Times called a billionaire, but his net worth was closer to $500 million, Forbes estimated in November [2018].”
  • Greed – excessive or reprehensible passion in acquiring money or material things. See Gluttony.
  • Laziness – disinclined to activity or exertion: not energetic or vigorous. Democrats support two policies that promote laziness. The first is the $15 minimum wage ($15 Now). Raising the minimum wage without merit promotes laziness. Why work harder when a Democratic Party controlled government is going to raise every ones hourly salary anyway? The second is promising a job to everyone. Senator Cory Booker, D-N.J., released a plan that would create a pilot job guarantee programs in 15 communities where unemployment is particularly high. NPR reports, “Proposals like a job guarantee, Medicare for all and tuition-free college have moved from the policy fringe on the left toward the mainstream in the Democratic Party, embraced by some of those interested in challenging Trump as the party tries to give voters a clear, memorable outline of what Democrats stand for.” Getting something for nothing is the definition of laziness.
  • Wrath – strong vengeful anger or indignation. Anger, indignation and hate permeates the Democratic candidates. They cannot fathom that there are Americans who voted to make Donald J. Trump president and will do so again in 2020. Timothy P. Carney in a Washington Examiner column titled “Can Democrats love the voters Hillary hated?” wrote, “Democrats took over the House of Representatives in part by picking up dozens of seats in upper-middle-class suburban districts. The new bragging point for Democrats is that they are the party of the highly educated and the successful. It allows for the self-serving explanation that people who know the real deal vote Democratic, and only the clueless bitter clingers vote Republican.” The use of terms like racist, bigoted, hateful, misogynistic, Islamophobic and homophobic against those who support President Trump are key indicators of how wrathful Democrats and their supporters have become. What is also on the rise is the wrath of the Democratic Party against Jews. Anti-Semitism is now their official policy.
  • Envy – painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage. Democrats hate success (see Gluttony, Greed and Wrath). Democratic candidates for president are by all definitions successful people. However, they envy those who are as or more successful than they are. They want to tax those with wealth at a rate of 70%. It is most interesting that Democrats are fully embraced by a litany of Hollywood millionaires, corporate billionaires (CEOs of Facebook, Google, Twitter) and multi-millionaire sports and media personalities.
  • Pride – quality or state of being proud – inordinate self esteem. Democrats embrace the term “pride” but pride in what exactly? Are they proud to be an American? Do they take pride in making America, and thereby Americans, great? Their stated policies would show that they hate America. Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated on MSNBC, “I hear these things about ‘let’s make America great again’ and I think to myself, exactly ‘when did you think America was great’?” Another example of pride is former President Barack Obama referring to himself a record-breaking 392 times in his April, 2019 Berlin speech. Democratic pride in deed and words.

When some say that the November 2020 Presidential Election is about the soul of this nation, they are spot on.

MOVIE REVIEW: Rocketman the Human Tragedy of ‘Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places’

Lyrics of Looking For Love In All The Wrong Places 

Well, I’ve spent a lifetime lookin’ for you;
singles bars and good time lovers were never true.
Playin’ a fools game hopin’ to win;
and tellin’ those sweet lies and losin’ again.
I was lookin’ for love in all the wrong places,
Lookin’ for love in too many faces,
searchin’ their eyes and lookin’ for traces
of what I’m dreamin’ of.

Songwriters: Bob Morrison / Patti Ryan / Wanda Mallette


The film Rocketman is a remake of the film Bohemian Rhapsody. Same story about failed lives, sexual addiction (homosexuality), drug and alcohol addiction, betrayal by homosexual lovers and failure to achieve true redemption.

In my column “Bohemian Rhapsody: A Case Study Of The Destructive Gay Lifestyle” I wrote:

I came away with a feeling of deep sadness watching the tragedy of the life of Queen lead singer Freddie Mercury, played brilliantly by Rami Malek. If anything Bohemian Rhapsody is a case study of the decline, fall and untimely death of a bi-sexual individual because of his promiscuous gay lifestyle.

The acting was excellent. The script and images depicted in great detail the path of Freddie from a heterosexual male into the darkest and deepest world of homosexuality.

If anything the lesson of Bohemian Rhapsody is about temptation and the weakness of the flesh.

Rocketman is all about temptation and the weakness of the flesh. Rocketman is also about failed parenting and its consequences. Reginald was never loved in his childhood, portrayed as flashbacks in the film, and is desperately seeking love throughout the film, in all the wrong places. His homosexuality doesn’t bring him love, rather his homosexual partners do just the opposite, they betray his trust and love.

Both Rocketman and Bohemian Rhapsody are sad films, with great music and acting.

There’s no doubt that Reginald Kenneth Dwight (a.k.a. Elton John), played brilliantly by Taron Egerton, and Queen lead singer Freddie Mercury had much in common. Both great talents who failed in their personal lives. Reginald is still alive. Freddie died of HIV/AIDS.

Both films are about how far a human being can fall into the abyss of sex, drugs and rock and roll. After watching Rocketman I began thinking of the the 1980 Country & Western song “Lookin’ for Love in All the Wrong Places” sung by Johnny Lee. The song was the sound track for the film “Urban Cowboy” co-starring John Travolta. “Urban Cowboy” is another tragic story of a man and woman who betray one another during their marriage. What is ironic is the only person who stood by Elton was Bernie Taupin, a straight white guy, played by Jamie Bell. Taupin and Elton were like “brothers.” Taupin wrote the lyrics and Elton put music to the lyrics.

Mankind sins. We all are sinners. Satan, Elton John dressed as the devil, makes his appearance at the beginning of the film. Satan is the central figure in Rocketman. Elton John dresses like Satan because he knows that his life is Satanic.

At the end of Rocketman there are three photos of Elton John.

One of him with a caption stating that Elton has been sober for 28 years. The second with Elton hugging a little girl touting his efforts to raise money to fight HIV/AIDs. The third of Elton with his male spouse, Canadian film maker David Furnish, with their two adopted children. These photos are put in the film to make it appear that Elton has turned a stone in his personal failed life of sex and drug/alcohol abuse.

While these three photos give an impression that Elton has changed and is today all right is misleading at best. Elton is still a homosexual and will remain an alcohol/drug addict for the rest of his life.

What Elton hasn’t done is fully redeem himself and turned fully away from his homosexual lifestyle. Because it was that homosexual lifestyle that led him into the depths of a hell on earth, including a suicide attempt. These three photos ring hallow at best. Doing good deeds is not enough. Being sober is not enough. Adopting children is not enough.

The film is yet another sad commentary of how far into the depths of debauchery one man can go. We hope others learn from the examples of Reginald and Freddie. The path to purgatory is wide. The path to heaven is narrow.

I came away thinking that if I ever met Elton John I would say to him, “Take the narrow path Reginald. You will be glad you did.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children: Evaluating the Research

Will Abortion Politics Give Birth to Trump’s Second Term?

The good news for Joe Biden? There are still 17 months until the general election. That could be enough time to move past some of his catastrophic mistakes. The bad news for Joe Biden? There are still 17 months until the general election. And that’s an awful lot of time to make more.

Not many candidates survive a week as disastrous as the former vice president’s. And if you ask a lot of strategists, there’s no guarantee Joe Biden will either. As far as Democrats are concerned, his flip-flop-flip on the Hyde amendment — one of the most stunning policy reversals in 40 years — may have single-handedly reelected Donald Trump. “One of the largest obstacles to the defeat of President Trump in the 2020 election is the radicalism of the Democratic Party on the issue of abortion,” Michael Gerson writes in the Washington Post. “By forcing Joe Biden to abandon his support for the Hyde Amendment,” he goes on, liberals have given this administration its best chance at a second term.

“The problem here is not only that Biden appears weak and vacillating on an issue of conscience — which he does. Or that he will now be pressured to repudiate every hint of moderation in his 36-year legislative career — though he will be. The Hyde Amendment has played a particularly important role for Catholic politicians. It has allowed them to draw a distinction between permitting abortion and promoting it. Supporting the amendment has let them claim neutrality on abortion even while being effectively pro-choice. For Biden, this fig leaf is now removed. And seeing a 76-year-old man religiously and ethically naked is unappealing.”

For others, the shock wasn’t so much Biden’s betrayal — but what it reveals about the Democratic Party. “It’s troubling,” Richard Cohen mused, that the Left “is so intolerant of an opposing idea that it would doom a candidacy on that basis alone.” But then, this entire year has been a rude awakening for a lot of Americans who desperately wanted to believe that moderation still had a seat at the party’s table. Those illusions are gone, along with any whiff of Biden’s sincerity on abortion — or any other issue.

“He has put himself in an even worse position than Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign,” the Wall Street Journal argues. “I think he is actually toast,” “The Five’s” Greg Gutfield insisted. “I think that this is going to push him out the door.” Even in the press, the unofficial Biden fan club, the vice president went from legitimate contender to political cartoon. And why not? This is a politician who was talked out of four decades of conviction by the cast of “Who’s the Boss?” It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or Republican: a man who gets intimidated by Alyssa Milano is not who most Americans want negotiating with Kim Jung Un.

Even the liberals who agree with Biden’s new position aren’t cutting him any slack. Deep down, even they recognize how important a compromise like Hyde is to his electability. That’s why, the Washington Post argues, “almost every Democrat in Congress has voted for legislation containing Hyde Amendment language, and according to research by [our] Mike DeBonis, that includes every Democrat running for president who is currently in Congress or previously served on Capitol Hill.” Hyde’s popularity is one reason the policy was never really an issue for either party until Hillary Clinton made it one three years ago. And we all saw how that turned out.

Even now, in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Americans don’t want anything do with the extremism of the new Democratic party. In fact, Axios explains, most people (89 percent) are well aware of the abortion debate playing out in state legislatures across America. “And they support the moves to enact strict new restrictions on abortion.” In Erie, “a few of our participants said [the restrictions] may actually make them slightly more likely, on average, to support Trump.”

The time is coming — and soon — when someone will ask Joe Biden about his stance on infanticide. Let’s hope he has a better answer.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Signs Bill to Stop Infanticide, Care for Babies Born Alive After Abortion

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Launches Campaign to Force Americans to Fund Abortions

Kevin Sorbo on Democrats: “A Party That Supports Abortion is Going to Lecture Me on Morals? Don’t Think So”

Abortion Activist Jordan Hunt Sentenced to 8 Months Probation After Roundhouse Kicking Pro-Life Woman

Delta Air Lines Will Not Boycott Georgia for Protecting Babies From Abortion

When Push Comes to Pole…

Cuccinelli Puts the Legal in Immigration

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

VIDEO: High-Capacity Mags Have Better Chance of Saving Lives? Research Suggests So.

J. Eric Dietz of the Homeland Security Institute joins Cam to discuss research that suggests higher-capacity magazines are more likely to save lives. Originally aired on Cam & Co 06/06/2019.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Jeff Houston: The Dangers of Gun-Free Zones

James Makowski: Lightening the Load on Michigan Gun Owners

David Adams: Gov. Northam Calls Special Session in Response to VB Shooting

The Most Dangerous Place in Illinois: The Womb

Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker (Ill.) swore he would make Illinois the most extreme state in the country on abortion. And right now, he’s one signature away from succeeding.

No one thought an abortion law more radical than New York’s was possible, but the Land of Lincoln is proving everyone wrong. In an astonishing move that sweeps away every possible barrier, Governor Pritzker is about to make history by allowing any kind of abortion, at any time, for any reason. Gone is the state’s partial-birth abortion ban, its protection for newborn survivors, its conscience rights, and parental consent. Of all the similarities to the New York law, though, one stood out — and that’s how elated liberals were to pass it.

To most people, that’s astounding. According to a new Harvard Center for American Studies pollonly six percent of the country sides with the Pritzker and the 2020 Democratic candidates on infanticide. And the number who agree with third-trimester abortions is just as miniscule at eight percent. Officials like Pritzker who think this barbaric new crusade is a winning strategy are kidding themselves. Even local Democrats — more than 140 of whom have voted with pro-lifers on state bills — can’t stomach the extremism seeping out of places like Washington. In Illinois, one of the bluest states in America, six Democrats voted against their own party. Four others voted “present.”

Maybe they were as upset as the Republicans about how low Chicago Democratic Rep. Kelly Cassidy had to stoop just to get the chamber to consider her proposal. Believe it or not, Illinois’s bill was so controversial that she had to take a completely irrelevant measure, gut it, and add this abortion language at the last minute. Everyone knew: Cassidy’s bill was in limbo for a reason — it didn’t have enough support to push it through the regular process.

Ironically, the day after liberals proclaimed victory on their “Reproductive Health Act,” a local pastor was asked to open the legislative in prayer. It was with that tragic backdrop that Cory Musgrave from New Beginnings Church in Fairfield offered a passionate plea for God’s forgiveness. “God, none of our evil actions have been hidden from You. You see everything,” he prayed. “Lord, You have told us those things which You hate, and among them are hands that shed innocent blood. I stand here in this House, in this high place in Illinois, and ask You, O God, creator of Heaven and Earth, if there is anything more innocent than a baby that is being created in the womb.”

Musgrave quoted Psalm 139 and then explained that pro-lifers have tried to be “a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves as You have commanded us,” Musgrave went on. “Those appeals were denied, but we have one final appeal left and that is to the courts of Heaven… I ask you to rise up, God, and judge Illinois for the sanctioned destruction of the innocent unborn. In this House, I pray for justice to roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty river.”

When FRC’s Sarah Perry talked to Pastor Musgrave about the prayer on “Washington Watch,” he explained that he’d been invited back in February, long before the abortion debate exploded. He’d gotten instructions a week before from the clerk not to proselytize, but when he saw what the chambers had done, Pastor Musgrave knew: he couldn’t let the moment pass by.

“I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but Sunday night in the last week of the legislative session, they pulled this bill back out. It had been shoved back in subcommittee. They had a rigged committee hearing where they had very limited debate. They give the Republican side one hour’s notice, [and] they call it on a Sunday evening. And they decided to push that bill through. And as I sat there and watched that and heard what they were doing, it broke my heart that we are allowing this in my state.”

During the prayer, he found out later, five liberals walked out of the room. Others turned their backs to him. How did he take that, Sarah asked? “Well, I was focused on praying… I was unaware of it until after it was over. Also, someone who was standing up there with me, they said there was a discernible hiss from the crowd. But I was just focused on praying to God. My prayer was not to them it was to God.”

What an exercise in courage! Let’s hope there are other pastors and Christians out there who hear Cory’s story and are encouraged to be just as bold as he has been.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Star Struck by Abortion Laws

Religious Tolerance Translates in Egypt

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

PODCAST: Hollywood has Georgia on Its Mind, Netflix Teen-Targeted Suicide Drama, Fraud Alert: Genetic Testing Scam

GUESTS:

Jeff Crouere is a native New Orleanian and his award winning program, “Ringside Politics,” airs at 7:30 p.m. Fridays and at 10:00 p.m. Sundays on PBS affiliate WLAE-TV, Channel 32, and from 7-11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990-AM & www.Wgso.com. He is a political columnist, the author of America’s Last Chance and provides regular commentaries on the Jeff Crouere YouTube channel and on www.JeffCrouere.com.

TOPIC…HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS HAVE GEORGIA ON THEIR MIND!

Melissa Henson, Parents Television Council Program Director. Ms. Henson is a noted expert on entertainment industry trends and the how the impact of entertainment affects children and the American popular culture at large. She previously supervised the research and program content analysis operations of the PT and produced a number of groundbreaking PTC studies that document the levels of graphic sex, violence and profanity on television. Some of those reports include: The Ratings Sham I & II, Dying to Entertain, Faith in a Box, The Sour Family Hour, The Blue Tube, and TV Bloodbath.

TOPIC…Netflix Accountable for Teen-Targeted Suicide Drama!

Roger D. Klein, MD JD is an Expert with the Federalist Society Regulatory Transparency Project’s FDA & Health Working Group, a former HHS Advisor to FDA, CMS and CDC, and a leading authority on public policies related to the implementation of precision medicine. A physician and an attorney, he is a frequent guest on national radio and television programs and a regular opinion contributor to The Hill, the Daily Caller, Real Clear Health, Investor’s Business Daily, and other periodicals.

TOPIC…Fraud Alert: Genetic Testing Scam.

VIDEO: Ohio ‘DRAG 101’ Class for Teens Canceled after Backlash

DELAWARE, Ohio (ChurchMilitant.com) – A class to teach teens how to do drag is being canceled after an Ohio library was flooded with complaints.

The Delaware County District library had planned to offer a “Drag 101” class to “demonstrate the art of creating a character, costuming, and applying makeup” to children aged 12–17. After being inundated with complaints from upset parents, the library reluctantly called off the event, which was going to be funded with taxpayer money.

At a press conference Wednesday, the library explained the cancellation was owing to “safety concerns.”

“Let me be clear that this is in no way a victory for anyone,” the statement read. “Please continue using the library to engage your curiosity, expand your opportunities, and improve your quality of life.”

The library claimed the “safety concerns” were from the “hostile and angry messages,” noting, “A small number of those messages appeared to threaten the safety of our staff, our patrons, Selena and the teens and caregivers for who (sic) we strive to provide a safe space.”

The statement added that these concerns were shared by the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office. But when local media contacted Delaware City Police, they made clear no police reports have been filed, saying they had “no understanding of any threats.”

The class was to be taught by Kyle Gayle, a 29-year-old female impersonator who was crowned Miss Gay Heart of America in 2018. In a report on the event last week, West claimed the event was about “the building blocks of how to do drag.”

“It’s nothing to do with sex or gender identity at all,” West said.

The library’s statement also noted changes to such events after locals expressed concerns.

One of those, raised by Melisa Ackison, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, was whether or not the instructors were properly vetted. “My first concern was, ‘Are there background checks for this program and how are they vetting candidates who come in for something like this?'” she asked.

Ackison is an outspoken advocate against the exploitation of children and helped raise opposition to the event.

“The idea that the general public is going to stand down and simply allow our children to be part of a leftist social engineering project is the furthest from the truth,” Ackison said. “I have exhausted myself and my resources in the media to share truths about what’s happening and I’ll do it again to shut this down and send a strong message that we will not back down.”

Ackison also recorded the Delaware Library director, George Needham, admitting the class was not about art and theater, but “about sexual questioning.”

“Why would we be utilizing drag queens to answer and explore sexual questions from kids aged 12 to 17?” Ackison asked. “Are we going to just allow tax dollars, resources, public places to fund whatever political ideology that’s going to come from those who are in charge of scheduling events?”

She added that just as it wouldn’t be acceptable for female exotic dancers to educate and perform for children, male drag queens shouldn’t be allowed to, either.

Ackison is not alone in her fight to stop the normalization of deviant behavior. In March, the pro-family advocacy group, MassResistance, found out that the Houston Public Library had allowed a convicted child sex offender to read to children at a Drag Queen Storytime event.

MassResistance’s investigation resulted in a 163-page report that showcased corruption and unethical conduct with event organizers.

Albert Alfonso Garza, who performs as Tatiana Mala Nina, was convicted in 2008 for assaulting an 8-year-old boy. The Houston Public Library allowed him to read to children as young as two.

Drag queens were photographed with a rubber chicken, gay slang for a sexual preference for young boys.Tweet

“Pornographic material and general depraved sexual activity” by the Drag Queen participants was also uncovered by MassResistance, directly contradicting Selena T. West’s claim that “[d]rag is not scary; drag is not sexual.”

West’s Instagram page also contradicts his claim, displaying multiple photos featuring immodest dress and sexually provocative poses.

In April, MassResistance found a second convicted sex offender who participated in a Drag Queen Story hour for children. William Travis Dees, who acted as a greeter at the Houston Library events, was convicted in 2004 at the age of 16 for indecency and sexual contact with four children aged four, five, six and eight.

Dees and other drag queens at the Houston event were photographed with a rubber chicken — gay symbolism for a sexual preference for young males, or pederasty.

Dees is also part of a group called the Space City Sisters, a “mission house ” of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of men who cross-dress as nuns to “minister, educate and entertain.”

These men dress in over-the-top nun’s habits and blasphemous outfits to push the LGBT agenda, saying, “Ours is a ‘ministry of presence.'”

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence website notes, “The Sisters frequently act as educators, lecturing to classrooms of students and informing the cute boy at the bar about the risks of unsafe sex.”

Needham admitted to Ackison that there were no procedures in place at the Delaware library to check the backgrounds of drag queen performers.

The “Drag 101” event has been moved to a local comic book store.

COLUMN BY

ANITA CAREY

Anita Carey is a staff writer for ChurchMilitant.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Drag Queen Story Hour Held At University of North Florida Library

No Need to Sacrifice Babies for Hollywood Lucre

Sex Abuse Inquiry Risks Diplomatic Flare-up between Holy See and Britian

Abortion & Sodomy

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

PODCAST: Trump policies helping beat cancer. Polls show President Trump is right politically, on tone, approach & leadership!

Guests:

Dr. Gerard Francis Lameiro is an author, political analyst, and expert on forecast models. Dr. Lameiro is the author of five books and is a popular TV and Talk Radio show guest. Dr. Lameiro has been called by media hosts “America’s #1 Political Analyst” and the “Nostradamus of Political Elections.” Early on Dr. Lameiro correctly predicted every state that Donald Trump won. Dr. Lameiro’s website is GreatNewsForAmerica.com. Dr. Lameiro’s newest book is, More Great News for America. TOPIC…Dr. Lameiro’s chances of beating cancer are much better thanks to Trump’s policies.

Tom Del Beccaro, author, speaker, Fox News, Fox Business and Epoch Times opinion writer and the former Chairman of the California Republican Party. Tom is author of the historical perspectives The Divided Era and The New Conservative Paradigm and is publisher of PoliticalVanguard.com. As a frequent talk radio and television commentator, heard by millions each year, including Fox & Friends, Fox Business News, and the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal. TOPIC…Polls show President Trump is right politically, on tone, approach and leadership!

Abortion Debate Shows How Media Deploys Language Gymnastics to Serve Left-Wing Goals

“Pregnancy Kills. Abortion Saves Lives.”

That was the headline on an absurd opinion article in The New York Times, deploying Orwellian language to turn the abortion debate on pro-lifers and comfort those who support abortion on demand.

While the conversation over Alabama’s new abortion law has drawn out some wild arguments from the left, it’s easy to miss the less obvious ways the media reinforce the pro-abortion side.

The media, cleverly and often subtly, use rhetorical adjustments to reinforce left-wing ideas under the guise of objectivity.

It’s not just on the abortion issue that the media kowtow to the left in the terminology they use in charged public debates.

For instance, The Guardian, a British outlet, recently updated its style guide to reinforce the idea that challenging prevailing left-wing ideas about man-made climate change is fundamentally illegitimate.

Few topics, however, draw out media bias like abortion, where the concerns of pro-life Americans are left on the back page or uncovered, and a magnifying glass is put on anyone who challenges pro-abortion orthodoxy.

Ultimately, media bias regarding abortion is nothing new.

Ross Douthat, a conservative New York Times columnist, wrote in 2012:

Conservative complaints about media bias are sometimes overdrawn. But on the abortion issue, the press’s prejudices are often absolute, its biases blatant, and its blinders impenetrable. In many newsrooms and television studios across the country, Planned Parenthood is regarded as the equivalent of, well, the Komen foundation: an apolitical, high-minded and humanitarian institution whose work no rational person—and certainly no self-respecting woman—could possibly question or oppose.

This is certainly the case today.

Not only is coverage of abortion highly skewed, but it’s clear that the language used to describe it is made to soften the reality of what the practice is, while diminishing the concerns of those who believe fundamental rights are being violated.

NPR, which is of course publicly funded, recently updated its language guidelines for reporters.

Here are some of the terms now off-limits for NPR journalists: pro-life, late-term abortion, fetal heartbeat, partial birth.

Instead they are to use terms such as “intact dilation and extraction” (to describe a partial-birth abortion) and “medical or health clinics that perform abortions” (instead of simply “abortion clinics”).

The phrase “abortion doctor” also would drop off the list of acceptable phrases. Instead, NPR reporters are instructed to list the doctor’s name and write that he “operated a clinic where abortions are performed.”

If anything, the attempt to use more scientific language to describe abortions,such as “intact dilation and extraction” in the place of “partial birth abortion,” at best merely confuses readers as to what actually is being performed.

This point was well made by National Review’s Alexandra DeSanctis, who wrote in a thread on Twitter.

Of course, NPR has also set strict guidelines about how to treat the words “unborn” and “baby,” making sure that reporters never describe, well, unborn babies in anything other than technical language to remove thorny debates about personhood or humanity. NPR instructs its reporters:

The term ‘unborn’ implies that there is a baby inside a pregnant woman, not a fetus. Babies are not babies until they are born. They’re fetuses. Incorrectly calling a fetus a ‘baby’ or ‘the unborn’ is part of the strategy used by antiabortion groups to shift language/legality/public opinion.

Media bias on this issue will become only more pronounced as the “positive good” school of thought about abortion becomes more pronounced on the left than the “safe, legal, and rare” camp.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue of abortion, attempts to dance around prickly questions about life and humanity are unlikely to solve the division.

The media, as is so common today, distinctly reveals its biases and lets slip the mask of objectivity that’s becoming increasingly difficult for Americans to believe.

COMMENTARY BY

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast.Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter:

RELATED ARTICLE: 25 Senators Highlight Pro-Life Protections Ahead of 2020 Spending Bills


A Note for our Readers:

America’s trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so, given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C. and across the country.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it’s been painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely only upon the support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

We do this because you deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal today.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Abortion and Trafficking: Two Birds of a Feather

Abortion and sex trafficking aren’t often brought together in the same sentence, but they have a lot more in common than meets the eye and doubles the devastation in many women’s lives.Earlier this week, our friends at Americans United for Life and Global Centurion hosted a briefing on Capitol Hill on the connection of abortion to sex trafficking and various ways the women are impacted from their mental health to their physical health.

What people may not realize is that sex trafficking victims are often coerced into abortions by the trafficker so that he or she can continue to make a profit off of them. Believe it or not, it’s not always a male who is the trafficker, and it’s not unusual for women to be in charge of a harem of victims. At other times, trafficking victims are impregnated by their pimp so that they can remain under their control.

As discussed in our “The Link Between Pornography, Sex Trafficking, and Abortion,” it’s nearly impossible to know the total number of abortions committed on sex-trafficked women” but a in a survey of 66 women who were sex trafficking survivors, about 71 percent reported that they became pregnant at least once while being trafficked, and about 21 percent said they had five or more pregnancies while being trafficked and that from these 66 women they had a total of 114 abortions among them while being trafficked.

Abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood aren’t complaining because it’s more business for them. In a 2014 Beazley Institute Report, over 1,000 female victims of sex trafficking from across the United States gave information regarding their experience at health care facilities. Over a quarter (29.6 percent) of the survivors had visited a Planned Parenthood facility while they were being trafficked. One victim of sex trafficking said that they went to Planned Parenthood because “they didn’t ask any questions.”

Instead of reporting the traffickers, Planned Parenthood enabled them to abuse these women over and over again. More stories like these can be read in our Planned Parenthood Is Not Pro-Woman publication. Of course, it’s one thing to see the statistics — and another to hear the stories that put faces to the numbers. Our Director of Life, Culture, and Women’s Advocacy, Patrina Mosley, was there and explains that it was very emotional for listeners to hear the evils these women experience. But on the other hand, you could also tell it was freeing for the survivors to give their testimonies, because they know more people will be moved to fight for justice.

Patrina also shared on the panel that, in essence, the way forward is understanding the signs of sex trafficking in our everyday surroundings. The more people pay attention, the more likely it is that someone will be rescued. And secondly, there’s no way around the part values and sexual morality play in this crisis. Paying for sex and killing a child in the womb both devalue human dignity. Alongside punitive justice to deter bad behavior, we cannot abolish the modern slavery and holocaust of our time until we return to understand that sexual relations were designed to occur in the sanctity and safety of marriage.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

A Tale of Two Yales

One Bryant Leap for Mankind

U.S. Bishops’ Chairman Applauds States Passing of Pro-Life Legislation

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Cracks in the Dome?

The huge investments made in defensive systems are slowly emerging as an exorbitant and costly failure—or at best a very partial and temporary success. The time has come to rethink Israel’s strategic paradigm.

…the ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive. Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”, circa 400 BC.

Earlier this week (5/21/2019), both Israel and Hamas denied reports that they had reached an agreement on a six-month cease fire. Irrespective of any credence one wishes to ascribe the denial, it underscored just how fragile the current lull in hostilities is and how easily they could re-ignite.

Although it has been barely two weeks since the violence in the South subsided, public recollection of what transpired has faded rapidly—with the intervening Independence Day celebrations and the Eurovision hullaballoo helping to dull collective memory.

A brief—but necessary—reminder

This is unfortunate—and disturbing.

For it is vital to recall that the latest round of fighting between Israel and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip raised troubling questions as to the soundness of the strategic rationale underpinning Israel’s missile defense system—particularly the much vaunted “Iron Dome”.

Indeed, even before the heavy barrages that rained down on Israel in early May, doubts began to emerge as to the efficacy of the system, when projectiles launched from Gaza penetrated, un-intercepted, deep into Israel, hitting residences in the city of Beer Sheva and in Mishmeret, a village North of Tel Aviv—and two others landed close to Tel Aviv itself, fortunately causing no damage.

According to Israeli military sources, during the last flare-up, 690 rockets and mortars were fired toward Israeli targets from Gaza by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. About 90 failed to make it across the border. Of those that did, 240 were intercepted by the Iron Dome system, which assesses whether a rocket is likely to strike open ground or needs to be intercepted. The system reportedly had 87% accuracy on attempted interceptions, with 35 rockets striking urban areas. In the barrage, four Israelis were killed and over 200 were treated in Israeli hospitals.

Depressingly, there appears to be wide consensus among pundits that another, probably broader and more intense, round of fighting is merely a matter of time.

Significantly, the number of Israeli civilians killed in the two-day conflict was almost identical to that incurred during 2014’s Operation Protective Edge, which lasted nearly two months, when the Gaza-based terror organizations launched more than 4,500 missiles, rockets, and mortar shells at Israeli civilian population centers.

Has the “Iron Dome” become the “Iron Sieve”?

One of the reasons advanced for the Iron Dome’s ostensibly diminished capacity was the intensity of the barrages fired at Israel concentrated within a short time period. Seemingly affirming that this was a purposeful tactic, a spokesman for Hamas’s Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades proclaimed: “The Qassam Brigades, thanks to God, succeeded in overcoming the so-called Iron Dome by adopting the tactic of firing dozens of missiles in one single burst.

These results prompted expressions of skepticism—even unfounded derision—as to the true ability of the Iron Dome system to effectively protect Israel’s civilian population—even prompting once source to claim—somewhat unfairly—“It’s not Iron Dome. It’s Iron Sieve.”

Of course, such censure may be excessively harsh. After all, the Iron Dome is an extraordinary technological achievement, which has in the past greatly reduced loss of life and physical damage that otherwise may have been inflicted on Israel.

Nonetheless, in light of its somewhat spotty performance of late, there certainly appears to be a strong case for critical reexamination of the strategic rationale underlying the use of the Iron Dome.

Indeed, it far from unreasonable to assert that the Iron Dome has, in effect,  provided protection for Gazans no less—arguably more—than for Israelis. After all, if the bulk of the on-target rocket barrages had not been intercepted, and had inflicted largescale damage on its cities and casualties among its civilians, Israel would have been compelled to retaliate with massive punitive measures to silence the fire. Inevitably, this would have caused extensive destruction and loss of life in the Gaza Strip—far beyond that which Israel was able to permit itself to inflict with its civilian population relatively protected.

Flawed strategic rationale

Indeed, the adoption of this kind of strategic passivity was confirmed—and endorsed—in a recent paper published by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), entitled Long-Range Rocket Fire on Israel’s Depth: Lessons for Homefront Defense, authored by Meir Elran and Carmit Padan, who write approvingly:

The State of Israel has so far invested significant sums in passive defense and complementary technologies, with the lion’s share going to the “Gaza envelope.” The main lesson is that existing plans for improving public and private shelters should be implemented in other parts of Israel, as a fatal strike on the civilian space would generate pressure on any Israeli government and reduce its leeway in the face of Hamas … fire.”

But in the context of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian-Arabs, there is a grave strategic flaw in this kind of reasoning.

For it is precisely because the Iron Dome and “passive defense” have given the Israeli government “leeway in the face of Hamas fire”, that the fire has continued.

Thus, paradoxically, because much of their projectiles have indeed been intercepted, the terror organizations have been left intact, enabling them to continue launching further attacks whenever they see fit—typically either when they feel strong enough to do so, or too weak not to.

Defensive vs Offensive

The perverse situation is the result of the Iron Dome (and other missile defense systems) being perceived as solely defensive. Indeed, it is precisely this defense oriented strategy that has led to hostilities with Gaza continuing—with no end in sight.

The defining difference between defensive and offensive strategies is twofold:

(a) The element of surprise: The first is that relying heavily on defensive measures denies the defender the element of surprise in that, almost by definition, one cannot launch a surprise defense—in the sense that one can only defend against an attack once launched—often by surprise. So while it is possible that defense systems may comprise elements unexpected by the attacker, typically they can only be deployed against an ongoing attack.

(b) The damage inflicted: The second is that defensive measures cannot inflict greater losses than the resources any prospective aggressor is prepared to commit to an assault on his adversary. In the case of the Iron Dome, the maximum damage that can be inflicted is the destruction of the incoming missile, which the aggressor expected to lose anyway. Accordingly, missile defense systems, including the Iron Dome, cannot deter attacks by threatening to wreak unacceptable costs on the attacker and thus dissuade him from any further aggression.

The combination of these two elements—the one allowing Hamas and its terror affiliates to choose the time and scope of any attack; the other, allowing Hamas et al. to determine the limits of the damage wrought on them—provide in large measure the reason why the hostilities in Gaza persist.

Change of strategy imperative

 The pattern of violence in Gaza is almost monotonously repetitive. Time and again, the Gazan terrorists have developed some offensive tactic to assault Israel. In response, Israel devised some countermeasure to contend with it. However, all these counter measures were designed to thwart the attacks, rather than prevent them being launched in the first place.

Thus, suicide attacks resulted in a security fence and secured crossings; which led to the development of enhanced rocket and missile capabilities; which lead to the development of the multimillion dollar Iron Dome; which led to the burrowing of an array of underground attack tunnels; which lead to the construction of a billion dollar subterranean barrier; which led to the use of incendiary kites and balloons that, last summer, reduced much of the rural South adjacent to the Gaza border, to blackened charcoal—and look likely to do so again in the coming months.

Indeed, Israel’s decade long policy of ceasing fire whenever the other side ceases fire has allowed Hamas, and its terror affiliates, to launch repeated rounds of aggression, determining not only when they are launched and when they end, but also largely controlling the cost incurred for such aggression –ensuring it remains within the range of the “acceptable”.

Significantly, after each round of fighting, despite the damage inflicted by the IDF, the Gazan-based terror groups have typically emerged with vastly enhanced military capabilities and political standing.

Soon drones with biological/chemical payload?

This is clearly a recipe for unending and escalating violence — and must be abandoned before it culminates in inevitable tragedy.

After all, the Gazan-based terror groups have shown consistently that they can transform everyday children’s playthings, such as kites, into instruments of extensive destruction, and forced Israel to develop hugely expensive defenses (such as Iron-Dome interceptors) to deal will risibly cheap weapons of attack (such as mortar shells).

Indeed, it is hardly beyond the limits of plausibility that Israel might soon have to face incoming missiles with multiple warheads, which disperse just before being intercepted, greatly challenging its missile defense capabilities. Or the development of some kind of anti-aircraft capabilities that could restrict — or at least hamper — Israel’s present unlimited freedom of action over the skies of Gaza.

Or worse, will Israel have to contend with the specter of a swarm of drones, possibly armed with biological or chemical payloads, directed at nearby Israeli communities — rendering the billion dollar anti-tunnel barrier entirely moot? For those who might dismiss this as implausible scaremongering– see here, and here.

Indeed, adhering to a purely defensive/reactive strategy will virtually ensure that some kind of offensive measure will be developed to make it ineffective—at least partially.

The offensive imperative: Arabs in Gaza or Jews in Negev

Clearly then, there will be no end to the recurring rounds of violence and the escalating enhancement of the enemies’ aggressive capabilities unless Israel undertakes a dramatic change in strategy. Accordingly, instead of focusing on thwarting attacks and limited reprisals for them, Israel must strive to eliminate the ability to launch them.

Rather than ‏employ systems such as the Iron Dome as a purely defensive measure, it should be incorporated as an auxiliary in offensive action –i.e. by minimizing danger and damage to the civilian sector while a large offensive is launched in order to take—and hold—the areas from which attacks were launched—preventing them from being used for future attacks.

This is the only sustainable long-term strategic rationale for a defense system which comprises launching very costly interceptor missiles at very cheap incoming ones.

The compelling imperative for this modus operandi, is of course, reinforced by the prospect of a coordinated attack by Hamas et al. from the South and Hezbollah—with its even more formidable arsenal—in the North.

Clearly, the prospect of Israel retaking and holding the Gaza Strip raises the perennially irksome question of what is to be done regarding the Arab population of Gaza.

As I’ve pointed out on numerous previous occasions, in addressing this question Israel must face up to—and internalize–the unpalatable, but inevitable, reality that, in the long run, there will either be Arabs in Gaza or Jews in the Negev. Eventually, however, there will not be both.

Perhaps the greatest Zionist challenge

Accordingly, then, to prevent the Jewish population being denuded by unabated Arab aggression—whether overhead missiles targeting kindergartens or underground tunnels targeting border communities; whether incendiary balloons or explosive kites or anti-tank rockets on cars buses and trains—the only policy is the evacuation of the Gazan population to third-party countries by means of a large scale initiative of incentivized emigration.

Although the details of such an initiative are clearly well beyond the scope of this essay, I have, elaborated on them frequently in the past –see here.

Marshaling the ideological commitment, the political legitimacy and international acceptance for such an initiative is perhaps one of the greatest challenges for Zionism today.

A Forgotten Voice in the Alabama Abortion Debate

The goal of the new, strict Alabama abortion law is to potentially overturn Roe v. Wade. The law would penalize abortion doctors, and it contains no exception clauses, except for the life and health of the mother.

In all of the brouhaha about the new Alabama law, there is a long-stilled voice that has been forgotten. That of the repentant Roe of Roe v. Wade.

Of course, Norma McCorvey was the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. After converting to Christ and the pro-life position (about 15 years after the Supreme Court decision), she proclaimed to the world that the whole case had been based on a lie (a few lies, really). Chief among the lies was that she was raped (gang-raped at that), and that was why she needed an abortion.

By the time, Roe v. Wade was decided on January 22, 1973, Norma had already had her baby (a girl), whom she gave up for adoption. Justice William Rehnquist, one of two dissenters in the decision, voted against it because it was a moot point. Roe’s baby had already been born.

The opinion of Roe of Roe v. Wade is significant for the abortion debate, including the Alabama law, because abortion was accepted on a wide scale throughout the country, only by judicial fiat. It was not something “we the people” voted on.

Look at how divided the country continues to be on the subject of abortion. Well, why not? We the people did not decide that case on that fateful Monday. Dissenting Justice Byron White, the only Justice appointed by JFK, said that Roe was an “act of raw judicial power.”

Those who live by court decisions should die by court decisions. And Roe herself, after her pro-life and Christian conversion, tried to legally overturn Roe v. Wade since it was all based on lies. Therefore, if the new Alabama law helps overturn Roe, so be it.

Yet one person called the Alabama law “a major step towards the death of democracy.” Oh brother. The Constitution shows that the courts, including the Supreme Court, were never designed to legislate or execute our laws.

There obviously was a time when Roe favored abortion. She was in opposition to Henry Wade—the pro-life attorney general of Texas, where Norma was living at the time of the lawsuit that worked its way up to the high Court.

In an interview with D. James Kennedy Ministries television, she said, “My story began many, many years ago in 1969 when I found myself pregnant, on the streets. I was into drugs, and I really didn’t have any other alternatives in line. I did not believe in God, and I’d fallen away from the church at a very early age.”

Jumping ahead, change came about because of new neighbors moving in. Unwelcome neighbors at first. What transformed her in particular was meeting a little girl who truly loved God.

Norma continued, “In retrospect, when I look back on those days, and I see what a sad person I was, I have to really kind of smile and think about little Emily: a little seven year old girl who came up to me at my office one day and told me that if I knew God that I wouldn’t be going to the place downstairs. She befriended me when Operation Rescue moved in next door to the abortion clinic where I worked. And at first I didn’t like them there because they reminded me of what we were doing. I worked in an abortion clinic. We killed children for a living.”

She added, “I was a child-killer. I was an executioner.…There’s a fellow in the Bible; his name was Baal. He was into child sacrificing, and that’s basically what you’re doing out there today—you are sacrificing your child for a career, or high school or college.”

Norma found forgiveness through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who died for sinners, paying the penalty for our sins, for those who believe: “And I think once you’re forgiven by God, you should forgive yourself. But then you really should not put yourself in that kind of situation either.”

Norma warns against what happens in an abortion: “You are totally different after you’ve had an abortion. Abortion kind of sucks your soul dry; it makes you a very angry person inside, from what I’ve seen.”

This is why for the last several years of her life until her death in 2017, Norma McCorvey fought against abortion on demand. She would have welcomed Alabama’s new law as a way to try to undo the damage of Roe.

She said: “We want the child-killing to stop….There are other alternatives, other than abortion; there’s adoption….We don’t want to see Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land anymore. We want our children back.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Alabama and Georgia Abortion Laws on Right Track

The New Pro-Life Moment

Robert Royal: Pro-life opportunities abound, and Church leaders and laity must seize them, if we don’t want history to say that we did nothing. 


Something out of the ordinary happened this past week. On Saturday, over 10,000 people walked the streets of Rome in defense of children in the womb. Italian lay people have organized a march for nine years now, and it grows – despite no support from the Italian bishops – including the pope.

On Friday, Francis did encourage members of the Catholic Medical Association to “defend life,” though so vaguely that you couldn’t tell whether he was talking about abortion, euthanasia, immigration, climate, poverty – or all of them (more of this below).

But as usual no Italian bishops participated in the Marcia– they’ve been saying that they don’t want it to be seen as only “Catholic,” though why is not clear. And that they prefer to work through elected officials rather than public protest (though they seem to support other public demonstrations, e.g., on immigration and poverty, and don’t have any natural partners in government now that the Christian Democrats have splintered). Italian television, accordingly, didn’t even mention the march occurred.

The lone Italian prelate in the past, Archbishop Viganò, was missing, for good reasons.

None of this was out of the ordinary. And neither, basically, were the large pro-life marches in London last week and Ottawa. There are marches in many other countries in Europe and Latin America as well, though we rarely hear about them outside of the Catholic press, and not very much even there.

No, the real novelty is that Alabama essentially banned abortion last week with a  bill that was passed by the legislature and signed into law by governor Kay Ivey who, like large numbers of women, believes abortion is the taking of innocent human life.

Numerous states have now passed law restricting abortion, so we’re about to see a titanic battle in the Supreme Court – and American society.

Pro-abortion commentators are worrying about a reversal of Roe v. Wade, though the swift discrediting of the Center for Medical Progress’s videos showing Planned Parenthood selling fetal body parties suggests that it’s still easy to gaslight the public about such matters.  (Remember when Groucho Marx’s line – “Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?” – was a joke?)

But pro-lifers too are nervous, several wondering whether such “extreme” legislation makes it easier for courts to strike down such measures.

In any case, we’ll shortly know whether our legal system is entirely captive to anti-scientific ideology or still capable of rational moral debate. The Supremes may only send questions on abortion back to the states, where – as Justice Antonin Scalia often argued – it belongs, since the Federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction over such matters. The fundamental right to life will probably be addressed, if ever, further down the line.

But there’s reason for hope here.

Abortion supporters are beginning to deploy arguments that may delay but will not dispel the main question. Some states, for example, have tried to draw a line at the point where the fetus has a detectible heartbeat or some other biological marker.

A writer in the Washington Post this weekend elaborated on a new formula now appearing everywhere from Hollywood to Manhattan; “Lest I be chastened for daring to humanize an embryo, let me state for the record that the correct term for ‘heartbeat’ is ‘fetal pole cardiac activity,’ because at six weeks, said embryo doesn’t have a cardiovascular system and, therefore, no fully formed beating heart.”

Valiant effort, but if people – and the courts – start to pay attention to such details, we will inevitably have to decide, “So when do we have enough ‘fetal pole’ motion and vascular system to call what’s going on simply a heartbeat?” It’s not long after.

Similarly, as even outlets like The New York Times have been conceding for more than a decade, there is rudimentary brainwave activity detectible about as early as “fetal pole” motion – not a developed brain of course, but by ten weeks an articulated brain is forming.

These defenses of early abortion will look increasingly weak as people (and courts) look more carefully. Is there anyone who thinks that as science advances we will discover less rather than more complexity and activity in the early embryo? I’d be nervous, too, about the science if I supported abortion.

The Church – and especially the Vatican – should get squarely behind this burgeoning pro-life pushback. Commentators recognize that the radicalism of new abortion laws in New York, Virginia, and Canada have provoked the current reaction.

And anyway, protecting human life in the womb has been and remains the central human-rights question of our time.

Respect for human life is never merely a numbers game. But we need to find ways to take proper measure of the horror. For instance, authorities estimate 2241 people died crossing the Mediterranean illegally from Africa to Europe in 2018. In an average year, on the U.S. border, there are usually 200-400 such deaths.

So some simple math: 2241+400 (to take the high estimate) = 2641. Abortions in America are at a low point, “only” 652,639 in 2015 (though this is clearly an undercount since California and other states don’t report abortions to the Centers for Disease Control).

That’s 1788 per day. So every two days, the abortion body count exceeds the migrant deaths for a whole year. Planned Parenthood alone does almost 1000 abortions per day.

No one really knows global numbers, but a good estimate is 16 million abortions a year, roughly 44,000 per day. If that many innocents were dying while migrating or in a repressive regime or owing to racism or some climate shift or even in a war zone, the world would be – rightly – in an uproar.

Yet very few people, even those who say abortion wrong – even high Church officials – seem much moved. Some procedures are medically necessary (only 1.5 percent of abortions follow rape or incest). But there’s no getting around the massive, casual, brutal carnage.

We’re all going to need to learn to debunk terms like “fetal pole cardiac activity” and whatever other rationalizations will be coming now. But this is a new and special moment when some real change seems possible. And we – Church leaders, laity, all people of good will – have to seize it, if we don’t want history to say that we did nothing while millions of innocents were being slaughtered.

COLUMN BY

Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century, published by Ignatius Press. The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, is now available in paperback from Encounter Books.

RELATED ARTICLE: I’ve Had 2 Abortions. Here’s Why I Support Alabama’s Pro-Life Law.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 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.

Corporations Behind Equality Act’s Passage in House

On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation containing provisions that will seriously undermine 1st Amendment protections for people of faith.

The so-called Equality Act is essentially a sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) accommodation mandate at the federal level. Like the “bathroom bills” at the state and municipal levels in recent years, the measure would add sexual orientation and and gender identity to the list of classes protected by civil rights laws such as race, sex, age, and physical disability.

The Heritage Foundation has outlined seven ways the Equality Act would affect Americans:

  1. It would penalize Americans who don’t affirm new sexual norms or gender ideology.
  2. It would compel speech.
  3. It could shut down charities.
  4. It would allow more biological males to defeat girls in sports.
  5. It could be used to coerce medical professionals.
  6. It could lead to more parents losing custody of their children.
  7. It would enable sexual assault.

Small business owners, especially those who service the wedding industry, are already in the left’s crosshairs. Cake bakers and florists like Jack Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman have had their livelihoods threatened by government agencies for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings under similar SOGI accommodation laws in their states. The Equality Act’s implementation would open more business owners to lawsuits, including doctors and mental health professionals.

Fortunately, the Senate appears to have no desire to allow the Equality Act to move forward this Congress.

On the other hand, major corporations, at the behest of the liberal Human Rights Campaign (HRC), are openly endorsing the legislation’s anti-religious liberty provisions. The Business Coalition for the Equality Act is a coalition of companies that support this legislation’s attempt to promote the LGBT agenda while attacking small business owners and undermining the 1st Amendment.

Members of the Business Coalition for the Equality Act

Abercrombie & Fitch
Accenture
Adobe
Advanced Micro Devices
Airbnb
Alcoa
Amazon
American Airlines
American Eagle
American Express
Apple
Arconic
Automatic Data Processing
Bank of America
Best Buy
Biogen
Boehringer Ingelheim
Booz Allen Hamilton
Broadridge Financial Solutions
Brown-Forman
CA Technologies
Caesars Entertainment
Capital One
Cardinal Health
Cargill
Chevron
Choice Hotels
Cisco Systems
Coca-Cola
Corning
CVS
Darden
Delhaize
Diageo
Dow Chemical
Dropbox
EMC
Facebook
Gap
GE
General Mills
Google Inc.
Hershey
Hewlett-Packard
Hilton Worldwide

Use the links provided to contact these companies directly and demand they withdraw their support for the so-called Equality Act.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Crazy with Chips, Indeed–Chips Ahoy! Celebrates “Drag Mommas” Day

The Good in Men: Lessons From My Father


Help us continue providing valuable content like this by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission.