The Abortion Lobby’s Got a Brand New Lie

The abortion lobby is out there with a new claim: restrictions on abortions kill women.  The claim is based on a study from the Commonwealth Fund, a pro-abortion group, that purportedly found, “Maternal death rates in 2020 were 62% higher in states that ban or restrict abortion than in states where the procedure is still accessible.”  The study was widely publicized and led to headlines like Dobbs decision is “devastating” U.S. maternal health.

It’s all a crock.  In the first place, the study looked at public health data from 2018 to 2020, long before the Dobbs decision.  So any claim the study shows Dobbs, which was decided in 2022, has killed women is complete nonsense.

Second, this is a classic case of the intervening variable.  The claim is made that A causes C but, in reality, A is associated with B and it’s B that is causing C.  Let me put it to you this way:  Ice cream cones cause death.  That’s ridiculous, right?  But eating ice cream is associated with hot weather which can lead to death.  The Commonwealth Fund study creates the misimpression that abortion restrictions cause death.  But abortion restrictions are more common in southern states which, due to lower income and education levels, have worse maternal health outcomes overall.  It’s the lower income and education levels that are the problem, not restrictions on abortion.

This is borne out by data from around the world which shows some countries that are the most restrictive on abortion have some of the lowest maternal mortality rates.  This is true in Poland and Chile, and was also true in Ireland before abortion was legalized in 2018.  This fits with the fact that over a thousand OB-GYNs and other maternal health experts signed a declaration in 2019 that abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother.  Any supposed link between restrictions on abortion and high maternal mortality is further debunked by data showing twice as many women die in the two years after an abortion than after a live birth, with complications from abortion like sepsis and hemorrhaging contributing to the result.

The nail in the coffin, though, is the fact that the U.S. does not have complete maternal mortality statistics. Data collection is inconsistent and problematic, as the Washington Post has reported.  As a result, there is no official annual count of pregnancy-related fatalities, and no official maternal mortality rate.  Thus, anyone making claims about abortion restrictions and maternal mortality is just pulling numbers out of the air.   This is not surprising.  It’s happened many times before.  Former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg described in his books how pressure groups cook up phony numbers, feed them to the press, then sit back and watch as their willing accomplices in the media spread the lies everywhere.  So here we have a pro-abortion group, the Commonwealth Fund, feeding incomplete data to their friends in the press which has publicized the incomplete numbers widely, no questions asked.

Finally, there’s a disconnect between the claim abortion restrictions kill women and the ‘ask’.  You’d think the ‘ask’ would be to get rid of restrictions on abortion.  But that’s not what they’re asking for.  It’s a bait-and-switch.  They’re asking for increased social spending on Medicaid and other government programs to address maternal health overall.  The White House wants almost half a billion dollars extra to spend on maternal health.  The true agenda is to grow the government and create full employment for leftists.  They’ll ride any horse – including scaring people about abortion restrictions – to get there.  The Commonwealth Fund has been lobbying for increased government health spending for a long time and, if truth be told, what it really wants is an all-encompassing government-run single-payer healthcare regime.  But it will need more than a pack of lies about restrictions on abortion and maternal health outcomes to justify it.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

RELATED ARTICLE: Killing Unborn Children Will Never Solve Maternal Mortality

VIDEO: President Trump Outlines His Restoring Free Speech Plan—America’s Digital Bill of Rights

President Donald J. Trump sent a clear message on what his primary focus will be when he is reelected POTUS in 2024.

Watch: Trump vows to dismantle the “censorship cartel” when reelected,

In a December 15, 2022 Forbes article titled Trump Vows To Dismantle ‘Censorship Cartel’ If He’s Re-Elected—An Apparent Nod To Musk’s ‘Twitter Files’ Release Sara Dorn reports,

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday promised to upend all forms of social media content moderation if he’s re-elected, in what he framed as a bid to “reclaim the right to free speech” while describing a plan that seems targeted at the previous management of Twitter, whose new owner Elon Musk has become a recent ally to the right.

KEY FACTS

  • In a seven-minute video posted on Truth Social, Trump said if he’s re-elected in 2024, he would “shatter the left-wing censorship regime” by banning any federal agency from “colluding with” businesses, organizations or people who attempt to censor any forms of speech.
  • Trump also said he would order the Justice Department to investigate all forms of censorship and revoke federal funding for nonprofits, colleges and universities that engage in content moderation, including flagging misinformation and disinformation.
  • The former president called on Congress to take immediate action toward executing his planned investigation by issuing “letters of preservation” to the Biden Administration and big tech companies ordering them not to destroy evidence of practices he called censorship.

In promoting his agenda, Trump highlighted “bombshell reports” he said “have confirmed that a sinister group” of “Silicon Valley tyrants,” among others, colluded to “silence the American people,” an apparent nod to Musk’s release of internal Twitter documents that show how the company made content moderation decisions prior to Musk’s ownership.

Read more.

President Donald J. Trump On Free Speech

If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country. It’s as simple as that. If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple. Just like dominos, one by one.

That’s why today, I’m announcing my plan to shatter the left-wing censorship regime and to reclaim the right to free speech for all Americans and reclaim is a very important word in this case because they’ve taken it away.

In recent weeks, bombshell reports have confirmed that a sinister group of deep state bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists and depraved corporate news media have been conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people. They have collaborated to suppress vital information on everything from elections to public health. The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed and it must happen immediately.

Within hours of my inauguration, I will sign an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with any organization, business, or person, to censor, limit, categorize, or impede the lawful speech of American citizens. I will then ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as ‘mis-‘ or ‘dis-information’. And I will begin the process of identifying and firing every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship — directly or indirectly… all parties involved in the new online censorship regime, which is absolutely destructive and terrible, and to aggressively prosecute any and all crimes identified…

From now on, digital platforms should only qualify for immunity protection under Section 230, if they meet high standards of neutrality, transparency, fairness and non-discrimination… “When users of big online platforms have their content or accounts removed, throttled, shadowbanned or otherwise restricted, no matter what name they use, they should have the right to be informed that it’s happening, the right to a specific explanation of the reason why and the right to a timely appeal.

The Trump Free Speech Plan for 2024

The “Restoring Free Speech” Plan:

  1. Ban federal agencies from colluding to censor American citizens.
  2. Ban taxpayer dollars from being used to label speech as “mis-” or “disinformation”.
  3. Fire every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship.
  4. Immediately send preservation letters to the Biden administration and Big Tech giants.
  5. Order the DOJ to investigate all parties involved in the online censorship regime and prosecute any and all crimes identified.
  6. Revise Section 230 to drastically curtail big tech platforms’ power to restrict lawful speech.
  7. Stop federal funding for all non-profits and academic programs engaged in censorship.
  8. Suspend federal dollars to any university that has engaged in censorship support activities.
  9. Enact criminal penalties for federal bureaucrats who partner with private entities to violate your Constitutional rights.
  10. Impose a 7-year cooling-off period before former intelligence and national security officials can work at Big Tech platforms.
  11. Pass a Digital Bill of Rights.

President Donald J. Trump has hit the nail on the head. Passing a a Digital Bill of Rights insures that federal bureaucrats stop colluding with big tech to censor Americans.

This is a priority as there is a reason that the First Amendment is first.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Christmas Musings – Religion and the Natural Sciences (Physics and Biology)

In the United States, about 20% identify as “nones.” In religious statistics in Europe and in East Asia the number is even much higher. Yet the most secularized societies on earth such as parts of Eastern Europe, the Peoples Republic of China, parts of Russia (big cities like Moscow) stick to extremely conservative family values.

Firstly, let me examine what the top atheist physicist had to say. Stephen Hawking’s quote:

“So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be.”

I have to comment on this: Beginning of the universe implies that we know what time actually is. However, all we have is Albert Einstein`s definition of time: “time is what a clock measures” and Einstein gave us a definition of “clock”, too. A clock is a device that counts regular events. However, due to the theories of Hawking and Einstein, at infinite high or low gravitation this concepts and definitions break down.

Think about it: Physicists can calculate with frightening precision, but they cannot really define what energy or mass really are. These are semantic questions, questions of the logic of language. In medicine it is similar: MDs cannot really define what health or sickness, what “normal” or “handicapped” mean, but they can help so many of us. Physics nobelist Stephen Weinberg told the NY Times in 1999:

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

I disagree: There are/were non-religious ideologies (fascism, communism) that made atheists do extremely bad things, too.

Even if the physicists knew all laws of nature, they still would not know why they are the way they are. (Except it could be proven that only this single possibility exists.)

The big bang theory was created by a Belgian catholic priest and friend of Albert Einstein, Georges Edouard Lemaître (* July 17th 1894 in Charleroi, Belgium; † 20. Juni 1966 in Leuven, Belgium), and pope Pope Pius XII saw the Big Bang theory as a type of scientific proof for the existence of God, and did not see it as contradicting the Catholic faith.

“At the November 22, 1951, opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Pius XII declared that the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the Catholic concept of creation.” (source: Wikipedia). The Papal Academy of Sciences accepts members of all faiths and convictions, Stephen Hawking and Rudolf Mößbauer, a physics nobelist from Munich, both outspoken atheists were members of the Papal Academy.

BIOLOGY

Primates and birds have four communalities: a good sense of sight, communication by sounds, most of them have complex brains and many of them have a tendency towards monogamy

Most birds and primates live high above – in the air or in trees – and those that don´t walk on two feet. They all need good eyes and vocal communication, travelling long distances and communication requires complex brains. Complex brains could favor evolution towards monogamy: Mating behavior (finding a partner and keeping him/her is a challenge – for all creatures). It could also be the other way round: Two parents can foster their offspring better, so there is evolutionary pressure towards higher intelligence.

That is convergent evolution of four traits in parallel between primates and birds.

“In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches.” (source: Science Daily website)

Alas, many monkey species, especially those of the Caribbean islands have become extinct because of human activity. We will never know their behavior. Let us take care of nature, animals can teach us something about human nature, if we are open-minded.

My message (what nature tells me) is that the family values of all traditional religions are the natural way for Homo sapiens to live, the path to maximum happiness.

By the way: Homo is Latin for “human being” the Ancient Greek word “homo” means “sameness”, this Greek word is the origin of the term homosexual. The Greek word for “human being” is Anthropos, and the Latin word for same is “simile”.

Merry Christmas!

©Edmund Morel. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Deus Absconditus [God is concealed]

Facebook’s COVID ‘Vaccine’ Fact-Checkers Are Funded by Vaccine Drug Companies

“This is absolute collusion on the part of vaccine manufacturers having funding the fact checkers on social media.” – Michael Rectenwald


Every time I posted a new study or data analysis regarding the side effects of the Covid vaccine to Facebook, I was banned, for a month.

Every time.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Elite, Expensive Colleges Are Still Mandating The Vaccine — And Their Students Have Had Enough

MSNBC Medical Analyst Says ‘It Only Makes Sense’ For Americans To ‘Mask Up’ Again

RELATED VIDEO: Can We REALLY Trust Vaccine Fact-Checkers??!

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Zelenskyy’s Wife Drops $40,000 in Christmas Shopping Spree in Paris

“Let them eat Medovik!”


They don’t even attempt to hide the corruption. The Democrat thieves have taught them well.

Today the lame duck Democrat congress are hammering out another billion dollar ‘omnibus’ bill raping the America taxpayer for Ukraine.

French Social Media Erupts as Store Clerk on Avenue Montaigne Reports Zelenskyy’s Wife Having €40,000 Christmas Shopping Spree in Paris

By | Sundance |December 14, 2022:

Olena Zelenska, wife of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, traveled to Paris France for a three-day visit December 12-14. As reported by Le Monde, “Members of the Ukrainian government will also come, including Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, and several ministers in charge of reconstruction, including Yulia Svyrydenko (economy), Oleksandr Kubrakov (infrastructure) and German Galushchenko (energy).”

Additionally, the Biden administration is trying to push congress to pass another $38 billion spending package for Ukraine to bring the total spent well over $100 billion.

If the reporting is accurate, the spending spree comes at a bad time optically, as Mrs. Zelenska’s husband Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is simultaneously asking the European Union to provide more financial support for the embattled country.

Additionally, the Biden administration is trying to push congress to pass another $38 billion spending package for Ukraine to bring the total spent well over $100 billion.

Mrs. Zelenskyy Christmas shopping in glitzy Paris stores and dropping €40,000 while her husband bangs his tin cup isn’t exactly a good look.

AUTHOR

RELATED TWEETS:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PODCAST: ‘Freedom of Speech is the Foundation of a Free Society and Without it a Tyrant Can Wreak Havoc Unopposed While His Opponents Are Silenced’

Gateway Pundit posted my interview with Joe Hoft on his radio show. Here are some of the highlights:

“Freedom of Speech is the Foundation of a Free Society and Without it a Tyrant Can Wreak Havoc Unopposed While His Opponents Are Silenced” – Pamela Geller Shares from the Heart on America Today

By Joe Hoft, Gateway Pundit, December 15, 2022:

Pamela Geller was on with Joe Hoft today and discussed the US status quo today.

Pamela and Jim Hoft go way back.  She reminded the listeners today of sitting with Jim at the United Nations in the mid-2000s and never imagining what we would be seeing today.  She knows what it was like as a little girl in New York enjoying freedom.

Pamela was reminded of what she shared a year ago – the foundation of our country is the 1st Amendment but without free and fair elections, it’s all just gibberish.

She continued with that theme today.  Pamela shared:

The people have no say and it is the opposite, the polar opposite of what this country was founded on.  You see they’re acting with impunity.  They’re literally without consequences.  It’s power without accountability…

…We’re living in an upside down world.  It’s really a morally inverted world where good is evil and evil is good.  It harkens back to the Bible.

And of course, the principle of free speech, as Ayn Rand said, is not concerned with the content of a man’s speech.  It doesn’t protect only the good ideas.

Geller discussed Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged, calling her arguably America’s most significant political theorist and political philosopher of the past century.

She went on to say the greatest enemy of women is feminism and that transgender people are mocking women.  “We’re living in a terrible age of oppression and censorship.”  America is now moving to doublespeak.

It’s really quite frightening.  Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society and without it a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed while his opponents are silenced.  Look, that’s us…Political opinion has been designated now as hate speech.

Listen to the entire interview with one of America’s greatest thinkers today starting at the 9:00 minute mark below.

Keep reading….

AUTHOR

EDITORTS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Harnessing The Power Of The Stars—A Step Closer

Nuclear fusion is the promising technology that could solve our energy needs, but it is always a decade off.

Scientists at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California have taken a big step forward.

Adam Houser reports at CFACT.org citing Fox Business:

Nuclear fusion has been pursued by researchers for years as the key to the world’s energy future. Clean, efficient, reliable, and powerful, nuclear fusion would change the world, and undercut the debate between solar and wind and fossil fuels almost overnight.

Yet for decades researchers have failed to prove that nuclear fusion can work in the real world, despite hundreds of millions (if not more) spent by governments and foundations across the world.

Now, however, scientists may have turned a corner. According to Fox Business, US scientists working out of a California laboratory “achieved a net energy gain in a fusion reaction.”

Fox Business reports:

“Scientists have been struggling since the 1950s to harness the fusion reaction that powers the sun. But no group has been able to produce more energy from the reaction than it consumes. 

“Though developing fusion power stations at scale is still decades away, the breakthrough has significant implications as the world seeks to wean itself off of fossil fuels. Fusion reactions emit zero carbon and do not produce any long-lasting radioactive waste. Per The Times, a small cup of hydrogen fuel could potentially power a house for hundreds of years. 

“‘If this is confirmed, we are witnessing a moment of history,’ said Dr Arthur Turrell, a plasma physicist, told the paper. ‘Scientists have struggled to show that fusion can release more energy than is put in since the 1950s, and the researchers at Lawrence Livermore seem to have finally and absolutely smashed this decades-old goal.’

“U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and under-secretary for nuclear security Jill Hruby are expected to formally announce ‘a major scientific breakthrough’ at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Tuesday.”

Read the full story in Fox Business here.

In 2019 a team of CFACT researchers met with scientists at the ITER, or International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, in France.  Take a look at the video we posted to YouTube explaining this massive project.

The Wall Street Journal reminds us to temper our expectations, writing “what the experiment proved is that scientists can recreate the physical reactions in stars. But scaling the technology and making it commercially viable by most scientists’ accounts will likely take another few decades.”

At CFACT we remain sober about the scientific and engineering challenges facing the development of nuclear fusion technology.

Nonetheless, the potential of this safe, clean, endlessly abundant energy source could change everything.

Let’s do the science and find out.

For nature and people too.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why fusion ignition is being hailed as a major breakthrough

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

Judge Blocks Biden Admin’s Push To Scrap Trump-Era Border Policy

A federal judge in Texas blocked the Biden administration from scrapping the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a pause on the Biden administration’s decision to end the program, according to the judge’s order. The policy forces certain illegal immigrants to return to Mexico as they await court proceedings.

The Supreme Court ruled  in June that the Biden administration can terminate the policy, which was formally lifted in August.

“As Secretary Mayorkas has said, MPP has endemic flaws, imposes unjustifiable human costs, and pulls resources and personnel away from other priority efforts to secure our border,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said at the time.

The Biden administration initially tried to end the policy on the president’s first day in office, but was quickly met lawsuits led by Republican states.

The decision comes as federal border authorities encounter overwhelming levels of illegal immigration, with a record more than 2.3 million migrants encountered in fiscal year 2022 and even more expected with the end of another Trump-era expulsion policy, Title 42, expected on Dec. 21.

AUTHOR

JENNIE TAER

Investigative reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Border Patrol Agents Confronted Mayorkas In El Paso. Here’s What Was Said

Biden Regime Sues Arizona For Building Border Wall

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Ex-Twitter Manager Slapped With Three-Year Prison Sentence For Spying For Saudi Arabia

A former manager at Twitter, convicted of spying for Saudi Arabia, was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison on Wednesday, U.S. prosecutors said.

Ahmad Abouammo, who provided a Saudi official with user information in exchange for a $42,000 watch and a pair of $100,000 wire transfers, received 3.5 years in prison despite prosecutors originally pushing for seven years, according to Reuters. Abouammo was found guilty of spying and money laundering on behalf of the Saudi Arabian government, and using his position at Twitter to acquire information about Twitter users for the Saudi Royal Family in August.

The max sentencing was up to “decades” in prison, but prosecutors were pushing for seven years to “deter others in the technology and social media industry from selling out the data of vulnerable users,” according to Reuters. Abouammo’s attorneys requested a probationary sentence at his home in Seattle with no prison time.

During the August trial, prosecutor Eric Cheng said “they paid for a mole” during his closing argument, noting that Abouammo was paid in bribes three times his salary. “We all know that kind of money is not for nothing,” he said.

Abuoammo managed media for high-profile users in the Middle East and North Africa for Twitter. Abuoammo was arrested in 2019 in Seattle, but was set free on bail until the trial in San Francisco.

Abuoammo’s attorneys noted that he was dealing with financial trouble while at Twitter, saying that he had been “struggling to pay for and deal with serious upheavals in his sister’s life,” which included medical care for her newborn daughter, according to Reuters.

AUTHOR

BRONSON WINSLOW

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLE: REPORT: Twitter Temporarily Suspends Employee Access, Closes Offices

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Musk’s Twitter Buy ‘The Best $44 Billion I’ve Seen Spent in My Lifetime’: Congressman

If Elon Musk won’t suppress the news, CBS, ABC, and NBC News are more than happy to. While the Twitter files continue to drip out damning evidence of the company’s pre-Musk bias, three of America’s biggest outlets refuse to cover the story that’s riveting people the world over. In an ironic twist, the media is so beholden to Big Tech that it is suppressing a story about suppression. But don’t think the truth won’t get out, Congressman Pat Fallon (R-Texas) warns. The GOP is weeks away from House control, and no amount of coordinated media blackouts will protect Silicon Valley then.

“Get ready for Republican oversight” was the message of incoming soon-to-be committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.). Like the rest of his conservative colleagues, he’s ready to dive into the last two years of criminal mismanagement under Democratic rule — on everything from the border and COVID to Afghanistan, energy, and Hunter Biden. But this latest wrinkle, this proof of widescale, devastating, conservative censorship will be priority #1.

Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) may have been unsurprised by the revelations at Twitter, but he’s outraged nonetheless. “…[O]ur worst fears and suspicions have been confirmed,” he told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “Washington Watch.” “Really. I mean, you had the head of their legal department, Vijaya Gadde, admitting that the FBI told him, ‘Hey, listen, you’re going to get probably a hack and leak story in October dealing with Hunter Biden. So just be aware of that and take action.’ That’s very troubling.” Add that to the suspicions that Google “magically” made 70% of GOP campaign emails redirect into spam, and Fallon warns that this is a much bigger, more sinister problem than people realize.

“Now we’ve confirmed that Twitter, I suspect Facebook, and other Big Tech firms are doing the same thing. We’ll get them under oath, because they claim that they’re not biased — which I find laughable, being that I’ve been… a victim of their shadow-banning for years. So let’s ask them… and see what they say. And if they want to commit perjury, well, then, they’re going to have to pay the consequences — and then they might do a perp walk after all.”

Perkins pointed out that while Twitter might be a private company, “they’ve become the public square. … They’re like a public utility… like a telephone company. And can you imagine the telephone company refusing to do service with one person because they don’t like their politics? But that’s essentially what we have with Big Tech.” And worse, he explained, since the Biden administration was colluding with these platforms to squelch “disinformation.”

“If you’re on the government clock,” Fallon argued, “… and using taxpayer resources to meddle in politics and campaigning — you’re breaking federal law. And it seems to us [from] what we’ve uncovered thus far, that’s exactly what went on. That’s why another [reason] we need to call some of these former executives and current executives of Big Tech [before Congress and ask], ‘Have government officials [been] pressuring you and telling you to edit political free speech?’”

Asked if Twitter violated election laws, the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, who served on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from 2006-2007, replied, “The answer to that is yes.” But, he told Perkins, “In September of last year, the Federal Election Commission, which has authority over investigating violations of our federal campaign finance laws, actually dismissed complaints that have been filed against Twitter — not only for shadow-banning Republican elected officials and candidates, but also for suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story.”

Twitter executives claimed they hadn’t coordinated with the Biden campaign. But also, von Spakovsky, explained, Jack Dorsey’s team insisted they had “a bona fide commercial reason for suppressing the Hunter Biden story, which was their internal policy against publishing hacked materials.” But now that we know they were lying, the FEC needs “to reopen that file, reconsider the case, and potentially make criminal referrals to the Justice Department for any Twitter executives who committed perjury in their testimony to the FEC,” he insisted. After all, it’s “a potential violation of campaign finance law,” the former commissioner pointed out.

The lawyers who filed the original complaints need to go back to the FEC and say, “You might need to reconsider your decision to close the file based on this newly uncovered evidence,” von Spakovsky urged. At the end of the day, the FEC has civil authority, “so they can impose fines and … penalties on anyone violating campaign finance laws, including a corporation.”

In the meantime, expect an intense, in-depth investigation of Twitter and all of the social media platforms suspected of cracking down on conservative or politically inconvenient messaging. “This is the best $44 billion I’ve seen spent in my lifetime,” Fallon insisted. “I mean, thank you, Elon Musk. It’s like the Wizard of Oz, and he’s pulled back the curtain, and we find that all of our suspicions have been confirmed.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Ex-Twitter Manager Slapped With Three-Year Prison Sentence For Spying For Saudi Arabia

EDITORS NOTE: This The Washing Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Isn’t Drafting Women an Imperative of Equality?

While I used to quip before the millennium’s turn that “I’m a real man of the ’90s — the 1890s,” the truth is that I’m more like Mayberry Meets the Middle Ages.

It’s not so much that I hate new ideas (insofar as such things exist) or love old ideas, but that I yearn for eternal ideas. I thus very well could turn back the clock to the days of chivalry, when virtue was exalted and “values” (the term) unknown, faith was fact and “atheism” (the term) unheard, and “equality” was applied only to weights and measures. But while I could, I can’t. This brings me to the matter of women and the draft.

At a gathering a couple of years ago, a young man, about age 20, registered surprise when I told him women didn’t have to sign up for Selective Service. His reaction was no surprise: Marinated in Equality Dogma growing up, he probably couldn’t imagine that the greatest sacrifice one could be required to make — to possibly have to shed blood for his country — is demanded of only one sex.

This could possibly change, as there has been a recent effort to require draft registration of women as well. Conservatives have generally opposed this, unsurprisingly, with the very good congressman Chip Roy (R-Tex.) becoming especially incensed at the notion. My medieval self sympathizes, too; I very much believe that shedding blood, whether your own or others’, is man’s work.

But there’s a problem with this: Equality™.

In its name we’ve denuded our civilization of traditions and moral standards. All-male clubs and even military academies, such as the Citadel and VMI, were compelled to become coed. Women had to be allowed in police and fire departments, with physical standards dumbed down (equality?) to facilitate this. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) was made more “girl friendly” because boys scored higher on it, and women were offered affirmative action to equalize their numbers in various endeavors.

All this was done to indignant, self-righteous cries of “equality!” with those defending tradition called sexist, misogynist and discriminatory. Yet this selective preference, which some sloppily call a principle, has been used cynically.

There’s much talk about the intersex pay gap (whose “injustice” has been debunked), but little about the intersex death gap (men constitute 92 percent of workplace fatalities). When female soccer players complained and litigated because they didn’t earn as much the men, they ended up getting half the latter’s World Cup money (even after losing to unpaid 14-year-old boys). Yet no one ever talks about equalizing fashion industry pay, even though female models earn substantially more.

Title IX was used to mandate proportionality in college sports; meaning, if a student body is 60 percent female (not unheard of now), 60 percent of its athletes must also be. The result was that men’s teams were eliminated to facilitate women’s teams’ creation. Yet if “proportionality” is such an imperative, why isn’t it applied to college admissions in the first place so that the student-body sex ratio is approximately 50-50? Isn’t academics more important than athletics?

We hear endless complaints about how there aren’t enough female scientists, engineers, politicians, upper-end managers and CEOs, but none about the dearth of female oil rig workers, garbage collectors, masons, landscapers and pipe fitters. If a young girl wants to be on a boys’ sports team, all that’s asked is if she’s good enough, with “Equality!” used to cow those who object. Yet no boy, even the young lad she may be displacing, can try out for a girls’ team even if he’s more than good enough.

The conclusion is plain: Equality appeals are ploy, not principle. The tactic is used by feminists (and others) to get what they want when they want it. It’s trotted out when what can be had are benefits, not burdens; authority, not responsibility; rewards, not risks. This means that it’s not about equality at all, but power, prestige, position and pocketbook.

So now we return to the draft. Back when society truly was patriarchal (at least somewhat), there was a congruence: Men’s greater authority was attended by greater responsibility. They were the only ones who could vote prior to women’s suffrage but, if the politicians they elected got them into a war, they were also the ones who had to fight that war. They had skin in the game.

Men still have that skin in the game. They now have no greater authority, however, as the equality ploy has been used selectively to further a politically correct brand of inequality. It’s a perversion of chivalry: Men are disadvantaged by an unlevel domestic playing field but are still expected to, when necessary, do the bleeding on the battlefield.

The point here should be obvious. To twist a famous saying, the best way to get a bad professed social standard eliminated is to apply it strictly. If people really believe in “equality,” they should strenuously seek its application across the board. But if they find such a prospect unworkable, it discredits the pseudo-principle — and they should then scrap it altogether.

And, ironically, it’s mainly conservatives who require this soul-searching. Many leftists have already dispensed with the equality pretense and moved on to “equity,” a more overt, aggressive iteration of the equality-ploy-enabled woke discrimination. This, though, is actually par for the course. As G.K. Chesterton observed in 1924:

The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. …Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob.

The good news is that “equality” could be replaced with that infinitely superior, timeless model: the virtues (e.g., Justice, Charity, Prudence). The bad news is that civilizational collapse is likely necessary for this to happen. The norm today is to be wed to Equality Dogma, and what society calls fairness is too often just a species of agreed-upon illusions. In our relativistic, emotion-driven time, people will continue enforcing woke double standards and men’s second-class status, and often not even notice, while professing equality all the way — because it feels right. The girls get what the girls want.

As for me, whether it’s the draft, men claiming female status (“trans”) taking women’s sporting titles or something else, I won’t play the white knight riding to the rescue. I’ll save that for a time and place where knights are, once again, revered.

Addendum: Earlier this year, the Babylon Bee satirized the equality ruse brilliantly with the apropos video below.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

Killing Unborn Children Will Never Solve Maternal Mortality

Since its founding, the abortion industry has always targeted minority and economically disadvantaged women as its prime sources of profit. Today, this anti-life narrative often takes the form of arguing that protecting life in the womb will exacerbate the nation’s maternal mortality crisis — a lie that a bogus new study from Boston University and the Commonwealth Fund attempts to perpetuate.

In the study, titled “The U.S. Maternal Health Divide,” the researchers claim that passing pro-life laws in the states will lead to an increase in maternal mortality and the disintegration of existing maternal health care. The legacy media wasted no time in elevating the report, with outlets like The Hill writing, “The new findings from The Commonwealth Fund confirm what many advocates feared: scrapping Roe v. Wade would have a disproportionate impact on women of color and worsen maternal health overall.”

The pro-abortion narrative is set — the only problem? The study doesn’t actually provide evidence or statistically significant data backing up the claim that protecting life in the womb augments maternal mortality. Rather, the study attempts to correlate the pre-Dobbs maternal and infant mortality rates between 2018 and 2020 with where the state laws now stand on protecting life in the womb in a post-Roe America.

One glaringly obvious issue with the narrative portrayed by this study is that under Roe v. Wade, no state had the ability to enforce a meaningful protection for life in the womb prior to viability. This means that during the period studied, practically speaking, the states now enforcing pro-life protections were indistinguishable from the states that currently allow abortion through 40 weeks of pregnancy.

Furthermore, during the three-year period studied, 20 of the 26 pro-life states reported at least a one-year increase in abortions, with several seeing increases across both years. If abortion were negatively correlated to maternal mortality, then an increase in abortion would cause a decrease in maternal mortality; however, increased rates of abortion in states that are now pro-life did nothing to alleviate the maternal mortality crisis in these states.

The study ignores regions such as our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., where women are almost twice as likely to die from pregnancy complications as mothers in the rest of the nation. The city also maintains one of the most liberal abortion laws in the United States; an abortionist in D.C. can kill a child in the womb at any point in pregnancy, and the abortionist does not need to be a doctor. The D.C. Abortion Fund directly finances abortions for abortion-minded mothers who struggle financially. If abortion were the solution to maternal mortality, why does unlimited abortion fail to remedy the maternal mortality crisis in areas like D.C.?

The answer, of course, is that killing a child in the womb is not a valid solution to any problem — nor is pregnancy itself the problem when addressing maternal mortality. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that 63.2% of all pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. Treating abortion as the solution to the maternal mortality crisis is a waste of time, money, and energy that would be far better directed to addressing real disparities in human flourishing.

For example, limited access to convenient and quality health care plays a major role in whether a woman is healthy before, during, and after her pregnancy. The Commonwealth Fund study attempts to characterize abortion as a solution to maternity care deserts. Of the 26 pro-life states analyzed, the majority are predominately rural, making the solution to a maternity care desert much more complex than simply opening a new hospital. Innovative medical resources, like telehealth services and mobile maternity care units, would go a long way in addressing the maternal health care disparities that abortion attempts to camouflage.

Likewise, abortion is not the solution to poverty. Nine of the top 10 states with the highest poverty rate in the country are states with pro-life protections in place. Poverty often predicts a mother’s ability to access quality health insurance, healthy food, and pharmaceutical resources. In these instances, mothers require assistance to access the resources needed to experience a healthy pregnancy and postpartum lifestyle — not abortion.

A quick glance under the hood of the Commonwealth Fund study reveals the major logical leaps that a reader must make in order to accept the claim that pro-life laws increase maternal mortality. Beneath the misleading pro-abortion framing, however, the report holds some truth: our nation really is suffering from a maternal mortality crisis. But one must only look around the abortion propaganda to recognize that telling poor and minority women that their safest pregnancy outcome is to kill their child is not a real solution.

AUTHORS

Joy Stockbauer

Joy Stockbauer is a policy analyst for the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council.

Connor Semelsberger

Connor Semelsberger is Director of Federal Affairs – Life and Human Dignity at Family Research Council.

EDITORS NOTE: This The Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Under the Radar, the Detransitioner Movement Is Surging

With the explosive phenomenon of gender dysphoria continuing to ripple across America’s youth, a related but much less highlighted trend is simultaneously occurring — a movement almost completely ignored by the mainstream media. New studies are now emerging showing that the “detransitioner” movement is far larger than what is commonly acknowledged, with detransition rates nearing 30% in some instances.

The phenomenon of “gender dysphoria” (the condition of being mentally distressed due to a perceived mismatch between one’s gender identity and one’s biological sex) has seen a colossal increase among children in the United States over the last five years. A recent investigation by Reuters found that a minimum of 121,882 minors in the U.S. between the ages of 6-17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria between 2017 and 2021, while admitting that this is probably an “undercount.” In 2021 alone, they tallied 42,167 diagnoses, an almost 70% increase from the previous year.

But thousands of young women and men who once identified as the opposite sex — many of whom attempted a “gender transition” by ingested drugs and undergoing elaborate surgical procedures to impersonate the opposite sex — are now rejecting the transgender identity and are once again embracing their natural sex.

As reported by The Post Millennial, new studies are showing that the rate of individuals who detransition away from a trans identity is occurring at paces that far exceed what the legacy media is reporting. At the Re/Detrans Canada event held at York University in Ontario last month, researchers presented a number of studies that showed detransition rates ranging from 2% to almost 30%. Three other studies from England show rates between 6.9% and 9.8%. Another yet to be published study of 774 young Canadians and Americans revealed that 16% had halted gender transition treatments, citing “health concerns, change in identity, and cost.”

These rates contrast sharply with the “less than 1%” rate that is constantly trotted out by transgender activists and the media. As noted by The Post Millennial, other cultural indicators also point to a swelling detransitioner movement. Reddit, an online discussion forum that in early 2022 was the 9th-most-visited website in the world, has a “Detrans” chatroom (or “Subreddit”) which currently has over 40,000 members.

Online accounts and testimonies of young women and men who have detransitioned from pursuing a gender transition opposite from their biological sex have exploded in the last five years, and distinct similarities are emerging from among many of these testimonies. While the causes for gender dysphoria are often complex and multifaceted, cultural and institutional influences beholden to a pro-transgender ideology have become primary contributors to the confusion over biological sex that is occurring among thousands of adolescents.

Here is a sampling of 20 testimonies from among the hundreds of detransitioners who have publicly shared their stories. The power that social media has to shape the minds of young people who have experienced abuse and are looking for affirmation is readily apparent in these accounts, along with the potent influence that medical and psychiatric professionals have in pushing their young patients down a path of gender transition drugs and surgical procedures that often create irreversible physiological harm.

  • Daisy Strongin spent seven years from age 15 to 22 attempting to transition from female to male. It began when she immersed herself on the internet due to depression from low self-esteem. “Chances are the kid who is spending 14 hours a day on the internet probably doesn’t have a lot of in-real-life friends, and so they probably feel alienated. I mean, that’s how I felt,” she said. She soon discovered the world of “genderqueer” and “gender fluidity” on social media sites and began closely following “trans influencers.” Strongin began getting testosterone injections and eventually underwent a double mastectomy. Soon, however, she began feeling remorse for her decision. “It just got so hard to look in the mirror because I felt more of a disconnect between my mind and my body than I did before,” she said. “I felt like I was in some kind of weird gender purgatory.” She now rejects gender theory and gender identity, calling it “a scam.” Strongin is now 24 and newly married with an infant son.
  • KC Miller began taking testosterone at 16 and underwent a double mastectomy only six months after starting the injections. She says that she was introduced to gender ideology through influencers on YouTube. After noticing that the testosterone treatments were causing severe hair loss, she decided to detransition. She now admits that “social contagion” played a role in convincing her to transition. “The more detransitioners that speak out, the more that will feel comfortable to come forward,” Miller says. “We’re going to see a huge wave.”
  • Chloe Cole went on puberty blockers and testosterone at just 13 years old. She had been diagnosed with autism and ADHD at age 7 and spent a lot of unsupervised time online, where she was exposed to gender ideology. When she began questioning her gender identity, she was fast-tracked by medical personnel into transitioning, and her parents were pressured to sign off on it. She underwent a double mastectomy at 13 and still suffers medical complications to this day five years later. Cole soon came to regret her decision and has now become a spokesperson to advocate for protecting children from undergoing transition procedures. She also launched a support group for detransitioners called Detrans United.
  • Helena Kerschner struggled with “depression, isolation, self-harm, an eating disorder, and suicidal thoughts” as a young teen. At 13, she was exposed to gender ideology through Tumblr. At 18 she began taking testosterone and soon began having fits of uncontrollable anger, eventually resorting to going to a psych unit where she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and psychosis. Seventeen months later, she decided to stop taking testosterone, and her symptoms immediately stopped. Kerschner noted that no medical professionals suggested that the hormones could be causing the symptoms.
  • Camille Kiefel experienced a traumatic event in her childhood, and she subsequently felt uncomfortable and vulnerable as a female and desired to look more androgynous. After being exposed to gender identity ideology in college, she began to identify as nonbinary, but not as transgender. “I struggled with severe mental illness and suicidal ideation,” she says. After only two appointments with mental health workers, they recommended she receive a double mastectomy. The procedure caused her to suffer from acute distress, and she is now suing the health care professionals for what she calls an “abhorrent misdiagnosis.” “I just don’t want what happened to me to happen to someone else,” she says.
  • Grace Lidinsky-Smith described a euphoric feeling when she started taking testosterone. She soon went ahead and also had both of her breasts removed. But afterward, she described having “intense, suicidal despair.” She eventually stopped taking hormones and started using her birth name again. “It became important to just accept myself as myself,” she said.
  • Cat Cattinson began taking hormones and described it as “one of the better antidepressants I had taken.” But after three months, her voice dropped dramatically. “Nothing was coming out except air and squeaks,” she said. She soon stopped going to social events and singing onstage, which had previously been one of her passions. After believing that transitioning would solve her depression, she soon discovered that it actually made it worse. Cattinson was able to find an online community of detransitioners and stopped taking hormones.
  • Keira Bell grew up in a troubled home in the U.K. and didn’t have very many friends in her adolescent years. She decided she wanted to be a boy at 15, but what she says was really going on was that she was “insecure in my body who had experienced parental abandonment, felt alienated from my peers, suffered from anxiety and depression, and struggled with my sexual orientation.” She went to a National Health Service clinic, which put her on puberty blockers at 16, testosterone at 17, and a double mastectomy at 20. “I was an unhappy girl who needed help,” she writes. “Instead, I was treated like an experiment.” After deciding to detransition, she sued the NHS clinic that treated her and won her case.
  • KathyGrace Duncan grew up in an abusive household and began to believe it was “unsafe” to be a woman. She began taking hormones at age 19 in the early 1980s and changed her name to Keith. Eleven years later, she was challenged by a fellow churchgoer and decided to start detransitioning. Duncan now works as a women’s ministry leader to help women reclaim their femininity in a time of identity crisis in our culture. “It’s time for women to break the mold. We don’t have to look feminine, we just need to draw it out,” she explains.
  • Walt Heyer was dressed in girls’ clothes as a four-year-old boy repeatedly by his grandmother. He was later sexually abused by his uncle, which made him not want to be male. He would cross-dress and wish he was a girl. As an adult, he began living two separate lives as a married man and as a cross-dresser. He eventually decided to undergo both top and bottom gender transition surgery at age 40, and his marriage soon ended. After eight years of living as a woman, he found himself still distressed about his gender identity. He eventually got counseling for his emotional trauma and received healing. He detransitioned at age 50 and now provides support to other detransitioners through numerous authored books and his com ministry.
  • Elle Palmer had a traumatic online sexual experience as a young teen which she says greatly shook her confidence and self-worth. She started taking testosterone when she was 16 but started losing her hair, and soon decided to stop. “If I had been going to a good therapist, if I had been going to school, if I had had friends and had meaningful relationships with people outside of the internet, I know that I would have been able to reconcile my female identity with myself the way that I was,” she says. “I was just living so disconnected from my body and so disconnected from who I really was.”
  • Luka Hein suffered from mental health issues at age 15 in which she experienced discomfort with her body. A therapist encouraged her to come out as transgender, and by 16 she underwent a double mastectomy. Her parents had been told that she was at high risk of suicide if she did not transition. She has also undergone changes to her voice and body as a result of hormones. Now 20, she regrets listening to the doctors, who she says manipulated and misled her into irreversible damage to her body.
  • Laura Becker was diagnosed with a developmental disorder as a child, which today falls under the autism spectrum. She was also “verbally, emotionally, and psychologically” abused. She began having social anxiety and attempted suicide. She also began viewing pornography, which gave her a “misogynistic view of women.” She began identifying as “genderqueer” after finding influencers on the social media site Tumblr. A psychiatrist diagnosed her with gender dysphoria after only two visits and said she was of “sound mind” to get a double mastectomy. She also began taking testosterone which “escalat[ed] her feelings of desperation and hopelessness.” She came to regret her decision and is disappointed with the medical guidance she received. “There is a lot of bad therapy out there,” she says.
  • Abel Garcia was raised by his grandparents and says he “didn’t have a male role model in my family.” The transient lifestyle he grew up with made it difficult to make friends. He learned about transgenderism on social media. When he came out to his parents, his father forced him to see a prostitute to “cure” him. The experience traumatized him. He saw a therapist and was “astounded at how quickly his therapist affirmed him as transgender, despite his mixed feelings.” He began taking estrogen and had breasts surgically implanted on his chest. Three months later, he realized he had made a mistake. He has since suffered from a plethora of health complications as a result of taking estrogen. “We should obviously give people the actual help that they need, instead of affirming this illusion that they have and that we are feeding to them,” he said.
  • Laura Beth Perry Smalts believed she was a man born in a woman’s body and felt she “just needed to fix the body.” She began to take male hormones and underwent a double mastectomy and hysterectomy. She later regretted her decision and married a man. She is now “deeply troubled by the lack of medical oversight and the ease with which young people are able to obtain opposite-sex hormones and surgeries.” “It’s so maddening when I look back. … Where were the doctors willing to say, ‘Hey, wait for a second, this is really not good for your body?’” she asks.
  • Dagny began experiencing gender dysphoria when she was around 12 after experiencing discomfort with her developing body. She was heavily influenced by people she met on social media who encouraged her to identify as trans. According to LifeSiteNews, “she no longer wishes to ‘transition, and is distressed that other young people with gender dysphoria think they have no other choice. ‘It’s time to change that,’ she said. ‘It’s time that we become aware of how much pain and negativity this narrative is causing.’”
  • Michelle Alleva experienced intense bullying at school as a child, and the trauma led to very low self-esteem. She began to find community online at places like Tumblr, where she connected with an LGBT community. After initially identifying as asexual, she developed feelings of wanting to change her body, and she received constant reassurance online that she should begin a gender transition. She started testosterone at age 20 and underwent a double mastectomy two years later. After an initial mental high, she soon began experiencing intense depression. She was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, and post-traumatic stress symptoms. Three years later during the pandemic, she experienced a breakthrough and realized that her transgender identity was not solving her mental health problems and began to detransition.
  • Arianna Armour was adopted by Christian parents and went to church every Sunday, but faith did not take hold in her life, and she began to identify as a lesbian at age seven. She spent the next 14 years identifying that way before spending two years identifying as transgender. She had lost her faith and was suffering from depression and drug addiction. She was invited to come back to church in 2019 and decided to let go of her transgender identity after spending time in prayer and reading Scripture. “It all came down to a choice,” she says. “I decided to follow Christ.”
  • Samuel Jordan grew up in a Christian household and dreamed of becoming a pastor. But he was sexually abused by a friend’s family member at age eight. After repeated abuse, he began exploring homosexuality as an adolescent. After a broken relationship with his mother who passed away soon after and his father moving in with another woman, Samuel found solace in the homosexual community, and soon began identifying as a woman and received breast implants. But after dropping out of college, he needed a place to stay and was taken in by a friend on the condition that he return to church. After experiencing a reconversion during a church service, he detransitioned and had the implants removed. “God told me ‘You just gotta say yes, and I’m going to show you that I am God enough to fix it,’” he says.
  • Jeffrey McCall was bullied as a child, and by age 15 was living a homosexual lifestyle. When his relationships with other men ended and left him unfulfilled, he turned to drug abuse to cope. Eventually his inner turmoil led to him taking on a transgender identity as “Scarlet.” This led to a continued pattern of promiscuity with other men and performing at drag shows. He eventually came into contact with two mentors, a college professor, and a pastor, who encouraged him in his faith journey, despite continuing to live a double life outside of church. One night, he broke down and asked God, “Will I ever live for you?” He heard God reply, “Yes, you will live for me.” McCall soon gave up his transgender and homosexual lifestyle. “It was a lot to handle,” he says. “I had to explain to people that it wasn’t about becoming ‘straight.’ It was a choice not to follow sin. The alcoholic, transgender, homosexual, prescription drug life I had was not what God had created me for.”

For more information, here is a list of websites of detransitioner advocacy groups and communities:

  • Post Trans – “A collection of detrans stories from female detransitioners and desisters”
  • Detrans Voices – “A community resource created for, by, and about people who have detransitioned and/or desisted from transgender self-identification”
  • Detrans United – “A group of former transgender-identifying youth and adults who have come together to voice our dissent against ‘gender affirming care,’ influence policy, and provide a network of support for detransitioners”
  • Detrans Foundation – “Therapy for detransitioners, desisters & people experiencing transition regret”
  • Sex Change Regret – “Take back your life. Others have, you can too.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED TWEET:

EDITORS NOTE: This The Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biden’s Handlers Won’t Seek Death Penalty for Muslim Terrorist Who Killed 270 People

Killing 270 people isn’t enough to merit the death penalty.


The predictable coda to the Lockerbie bomber being turned over is that he’ll get a nice prison retirement plan with full medical and dental. Killing 270 people isn’t enough to merit the death penalty.

A federal magistrate judge ordered the suspect in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, to be held without bond and scheduled hearings to assign a defense lawyer and determine whether he should remain in custody until trial.

Abu Agila Mohammad Masud Kheir Al-Marimi, 71, is charged with making the bomb that destroyed the plane and faces three federal charges of destroying an aircraft or vehicle used in foreign commerce resulting in death. The Justice Department announced Sunday that Masud was in custody.

Resulting in the deaths of 259 people.

Each count carries a maximum penalty of life in prison or the death penalty and a $250,000 fine. But Assistant U.S. Attorney Erik Kenerson said because the death penalty was not available in 1988, the government would not pursue that penalty if Masud is convicted.

That’s a nonsensical argument.

The Warren court claiming that the death penalty was unconstitutional was, in any case, a response to the specific implementation in 1972. It became constitutional again in 1976. The federal death penalty was only formally reinstated in 1988 in the sense of legal codes, but all of this is beside the point since Al-Marimi is not an American citizen, he’s a foreign enemy terrorist.

Ex parte Quirin settled this already. The Bush administration however failed to properly implement it. The constitution vested the authority to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.” That’s what international Islamic terrorism is.

But the Biden administration, which halted the federal death penalty, and is part of a radical faction that worked to destroy the War on Terror and enable Islamic terrorism can hardly be expected to do anything else except perpetuate their treasons.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Jersey: WCBS ignores Hamas-linked CAIR’s motives behind its rage at the ‘Hate Truck’ of Piscataway

Islamic Republic of Iran executes freedom protester, convicted of ‘enmity against Allah’

Sweden: School gives in to Muslim demands, excludes Christian aspects from St. Lucia procession

This Evening, All Hell Will Break Loose in France

Austria: Mosque investigated as hotbed of antisemitism and jihad incitement

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

Elon Musk vs. The Branch Covidians and Anthony Fauci

Elon Musk since his acquisition of Twitter has been on a mission to clean house.

First he, like a good businessman, started by eliminating a bloated, and biased, staff.

Second he purged “bots”, software application that ran automated tasks (scripts) over Twitter, usually with the intent to imitate human activity, from the Twitter platform.

Thirdly, he systematically began to review and reinstate those who had been banned for the simple reason that the former owner, and his minions, did not like or agree with their political views.

Since the Twitter acquisition Musk has had four primary goals:

  1. Make freedom of speech a priority on the Twitter platform.
  2. Remove any and all twitter accounts that promote the trafficking of underaged children, and/or promote child pornography, and remove pedophiles and pederasts from the platform.
  3. Reveal conversations of Twitter employees and thereby exposed the lack of any rational to ban President Donald J. Trump, and those who supported him for president, from the platform.
  4. Show clearly how Twitter specifically impacted the 2020 presidential election.

Now that Elon has accomplished these four goals he has set his sights on exposing those who provided a false narrative on Covid the disease and Covid vaccinations.

Here’s a tweet on what the Covidnistas think about his efforts.

In a December 11th, 2022 Daily Caller column titled ‘Prosecute Fauci’: Musk Takes Aim At Outgoing NIAID Director news and commentary writer Brianna Lyman reported,

Twitter CEO Elon Musk took a jab at Dr. Anthony Fauci in a tweet Sunday as Republicans have threatened to investigate Fauci’s knowledge of gain-of-function research related to coronaviruses that his department funded.

Fauci is stepping down from his role as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases after five decades.

Musk tweeted Sunday that his pronouns are “prosecute/Fauci.”

Fauci has been the subject of potential investigations, which could happen when Republicans take control of the House in January. Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul has threatened a wave of oversight, ranging from whether the coronavirus leaked from a lab, whether the virus was funded in part by gain-of-function research, and whether members of the FDA received royalties from the companies that created the coronavirus vaccine.

Read more.

Elon’s success in accomplishing his goals has been stunning and has drawn the ire of liberals, socialists, homosexuals, the legacy media, Biden and his administration, and the Democrat party.

QUESTION: Why?

ANSWER: His war on the “woke mind virus.”

Elon’s actions since taking over Twitter have spoken louder than words. Elon Musk is fundamentally an honest man.

Elon gets it right. The real virus infecting America and the world is Wokevid 2021. Since the inauguration of Biden in January 2021, he and the Democrats in Congress have been focused on the destruction of the American dream.

Musk said,

“This is the time to think about the future, and also to ask, is it right to infringe upon people’s rights as what is happening right now? If somebody wants to stay in the house that’s great, they should be allowed to stay in the house and they should not be compelled to leave. But to say that they cannot leave their house, and they will be arrested if they do, this is fascist.”

Spot on Elon!

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Musk’s Twitter Buy ‘The Best $44 Billion I’ve Seen Spent in My Lifetime’: Congressman

Ex-Twitter Manager Slapped With Three-Year Prison Sentence For Spying For Saudi Arabia

DeSantis Launches Grand Jury Investigation into Covid Vaccines

“Parasitic Generation”

Fauci Was Warned About Possible Gain-Of-Function Creation Of COVID-19 In January 2020, Newly Transcribed Emails Show

TURNING TABLES: Trans/Left-Wing Activists Confronted With Violent Incitement Hate Tweets At Violent Extremism Hearings