All articles from April 9, 2019

Featured Image
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne


Father launches medical complaint against doctor for ‘gender-jacking’ teen daughter

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A father fighting court-ordered testosterone shots for his 14-year-old daughter so she can become “male” has launched a medical complaint against the psychologist he says unethically and unprofessionally led his child to seek a transition.

The father, identified in court documents as CD, alleges in his formal complaint to the College of Psychologists of British Columbia that Dr. Wallace Wong “committed acts of professional misconduct and failed to maintain the standards of his profession.”

CultureGuard, which first reported on the matter, called Wong a “gender-jacking” therapist.

Wong is listed as one of the respondents in CD’s initial action, as is Dr. Brenden Hursh, pediatric endocrinologist at B.C. Children’s Hospital.

Judge Gregory Bowden of the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled February 27 that the father cannot prevent his daughter, referred to in court documents as AB, from receiving testosterone shots.

The father, who is separated from his daughter’s mother and has joint custody of their child, is appealing the ruling.

In his April 5 complaint against Wong, CD says his daughter’s high school introduced her to Wong, who diagnosed her with gender dysphoria and “persuaded the child of the clinical benefits of being administered puberty blockers followed by testosterone.”

The girl’s mother, EF, gave consent, but the father refused to do so.

He alleges Wong acted “in concert with the medical and health staff at the Gender Clinic at Children’s Hospital” in Vancouver in “applying inappropriate pressure” on his daughter to sign the hospital’s medical consent release form for the treatments.

CD further alleges that Wong obtained the child’s consent “negligently without advising the child of the extremely high risk of suicide and depression for girls and boys who transition.”

Wong also failed to advise his daughter that 80 percent to 98 percent of children seeking transition but denied treatment “grow out of it,” CD’s complaint states.

The complaint further accuses Wong of “counseling the commission of a potentially fraudulent act” based on Wong’s public address at a Vancouver library on February 28, which was recorded by volunteers of Culture Guard, a parent advocacy group run by Kari Simpson.

During his talk, Wong advised parents asking how they could be sure their child was accepted into the gender clinic program that the child should “falsely threaten suicide,” CD’s complaint states.

“So what you need is, you know what? Pull a stunt. Suicide, every time, they will give you what you need,” Wong told the crowd.

Wong also said there has been a 125 percent increase in gender cases over 10 years.

In the Gender Health Clinic, they have “more than 500 kids, just from the ministry alone. If I’m talking about my private practice altogether, we have … I see more than 1,000,” Wong said, as documented in the Culture Guard transcript.

Wong also stated his youngest patient was 2 3/4 years old.

“So you can imagine, in someone who is just learning how to talk and how to walk, the first thing is not Mommy I love you. They say, Mommy, I’m not a boy, Mommy, I’m not a girl,” he said.

The father went to court after Hursh told him in a December 1, 2018, letter that his daughter was mature enough to decide on her own treatment and his consent was not needed.

Bowden heard arguments from 12 lawyers — for the father, the mother, the daughter, the hospital, the school, the doctors, and the media, on February 19 and 20, according to the complaint.

The judge ruled that “While AB’s father does not consent to the treatment, I am satisfied that AB’s consent is sufficient for the treatment to proceed.”

He further ruled that AB “be referred to as male and identified by his chosen name in all legal proceedings, be allowed to change his legal name without the need for consent from his parents, is ‘exclusively entitled’ to consent to medical treatment for his gender dysphoria.”

Moreover, “Any attempt to persuade AB to abandon treatment or references to AB as a girl or using female pronouns ‘shall be considered to be family violence’ under the Family Law Act,” ruled the B.C. judge.

The father told the Federalist in October that his daughter is “very vulnerable” and he thinks her clinging to a male identity may be caused by the mental and emotional difficulties she has suffered since he and his wife separated in 2013.

According to the original court application, the daughter “suffers from depression and has attempted suicide at least four times.” and went through a “lesbian stage” in Grade 7, then later identified as a boy after she saw a pro-transgender video “Handsome and Majestic” at school, states the application.

School counselors then helped her pick out a male name and assume a male identity, but because of B.C.’s Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) policy — which states students have the right to identify their gender and are entitled to confidentiality — the father was not told, the document states.

Nor was he advised when school counsellors referred his wife and then 13-year-old daughter to Wong, who recommended she begin hormone treatment and testosterone shots.

CD’s daughter also developed an intense crush on her Grade 8 gym teacher, to the point where she was removed from his class, which “triggered a dramatic escalation in self-harm behaviour including suicide attempts,” the court application states.

CD asked Wong in November 2017 to treat his daughter for depression, but Wong did not do so, the court application states.

The mother told CD in August 2018 she had signed off on testosterone shots on her and their daughter’s first visit to the gender dysphoria clinic at B.C. Children’s Hospital earlier that month, the Federalist reported.


Canadian judge rules dad can’t stop 14-year-old daughter from transitioning into ‘boy’

Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News ,

California Senate committee advances bill forcing colleges to dispense abortion pills

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

SACRAMENTO, California, April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Newly-revived legislation to force colleges and universities to provide chemical abortion pills advanced last week in the state Senate, moving toward a likely passage and a signature by a more receptive liberal governor.

Last fall, the legislature passed the College Student Right to Access Act, which required “each public university student health center (to) offer abortion by medication techniques” and provided grants to cover the costs of any necessary equipment or training, “telehealth services” (also known as webcam abortions), and backup medical support.

“Abortion care is a constitutional right and an integral part of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care,” it declared. “The state has an interest in ensuring that every pregnant person in California who wants to have an abortion can obtain access to that care as easily and as early in pregnancy as possible,” and “public university student health centers should treat abortion by medication techniques as a basic health service.”

Despite being reliably pro-abortion, Democrat California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the measure on the grounds that it was “not necessary” because the “average distance to abortion providers in campus communities varies from five to seven miles, not an unreasonable distance.”

It has been reintroduced in the current session of the state Assembly, however, and past the chamber’s Health Committee on a 7-3 vote last Wednesday, Fox News reported. Abortion advocates believe their victory is assured this time around now that Brown has been replaced by his former Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who previously confirmed he “would have supported that. I have long supported that. I subscribe to Planned Parenthood and NARAL’s position on that.”

“If California wants to support pregnant students, it would stop positioning their children as a threat to their future,” Heartbeat International president Jor-El Godsey responded, Pregnancy Help News reported. “Instead of repeatedly forcing care providers to peddle abortion to women in need, California should follow the lead of the state’s numerous pregnancy help organizations in supporting pregnant and parenting students. California women are deserving of true empowerment — empowerment which doesn’t come at the cost of their children’s lives.”

The College Student Right to Access Act does not specify the types of abortion drugs to be offered beyond “abortion by medication techniques,” but “medication abortion” generally refers to taking mifepristone at an abortion center, then misoprostol at home.

Despite abortion advocates insisting the pills are safe, pro-lifers warn that they are not only lethal to preborn children but more dangerous to women than advertised.

“As of December 2017, there were reports of 22 deaths of women associated with Mifeprex (the federally-approved prescription version of mifepristone) since the product was approved in September 2000, including two cases of ectopic pregnancy resulting in death; and several cases of severe systemic infection (also called sepsis), including some that were fatal,” the FDA warns, on top of 2,740 cases of severe complications from 2000 to 2012.

Mifepristone can also be reversed by the practice of abortion pill reversal, if extra progesterone to counteract mifepristone’s effects is taken quickly enough. Progesterone is the natural hormone developing babies require to survive, which mifepristone blocks. Its pioneers credit it with saving more than 400 babies since 2007, yet “pro-choice” advocates fiercely oppose making the option accessible to women.

Featured Image
Twitter video screenshot
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News ,

Anti-Semitic leftist Louis Farrakhan claims to be ‘messiah’ in newly-unearthed rant

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Minister Louis Farrakhan, the hyperbolic leader of the Nation of Islam fringe group and an associate of various Democrat officeholders, recently tweeted highlights from a previously-overlooked speech in which he suggested that Jesus Christ was a phony and that Farrakhan himself represents the true coming of the savior.

Farrakhan delivered the speech (video, transcript) in February in Chicago, but it went largely unnoticed until he began tweeting excerpts of it at the end of March:

“God does not love this world,” Farrakhan declared. “God never sent Jesus to die for this world. Jesus died because he was 2,000 years too soon to bring about the end of the civilization of the Jews. He never was on a cross, there was no Calvary for that Jesus.” Instead, he claimed that Jesus “died in front of an old Jew’s store that was boarded up,” when Roman soldiers confronted him and said, “look, Jesus, if I bring you to them, they’re going to torture you; but if you let me kill you, I will do it so quickly that you won’t hardly feel it,” to which Jesus agreed, was quickly killed, and subsequently “embalmed to last for 10,000 years.”

“The real story is what I tried to tell you from the beginning,” Farrakhan continued. “It didn’t happen back there. It’s happening right while you’re alive looking at it. I represent the Messiah.  I represent the Jesus and I am that Jesus.” Like Jesus, Farrakhan claimed that he too has been persecuted for performing miracles.

“Every day they’re after me. Every day they’re saying something evil about me,” he said. “What have I done? For which of my good works do you stone me? You make the drug addicts, we clean them up. You take my little sisters, turn them into prostitutes and we raise them up. You bring guns and drugs into the Black community having our people kill one another and we clean them up.

“When you come and hear me preach, your eyes come open,” Farrakhan declared. “The deaf hear. The dumb speak. The lame walk and when I made the call in 1995 to Black people, with the Million Man March, that was like Jesus calling Lazarus and Lazarus came forth.”

Farrakhan has a long record of statements condemning whites and Jews, as well as promoting conspiracy theories. He has called “white devils” the “anti-Christ,” Jews “bloodsuckers” who comprise the “the synagogue of Satan,” claimed it was “apparent that there were many Israelis and Zionist Jews in key roles in the 9/11 attacks,” and in 1998 hailed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as a “visionary” being persecuted by the West to “make an example out of your destruction to all strong Muslim leaders.”

In his February speech, Farrakhan also denied having called Jews “termites” in October 2018 remarks declaring he was “anti-termite” rather than an anti-Semite. He claimed that “termite” was actually referring to the wealthy “ten percent of Americans [who] now own 84 percent of all stocks.”

While few elected officeholders admit to sharing Farrakhan’s views, he has been embraced by numerous national Democrat figures over the years. Last year, the Republican Jewish Coalition called for the resignations of Reps. Keith Ellison, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Danny Davis, Andre Carson, Gregory Meeks, and Al Green to resign for having associated with Farrakhan in the past. The Nation of Islam leader has also been photographed with former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and former Attorney General Eric Holder.

Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News ,

Dem Stacey Abrams claims it’s ‘evil’ for Georgia to protect babies with beating hearts

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Democrat Stacey Abrams took the condemnations of an impending Georgia pro-life law to a new level Sunday during an interview on MSNBC in which she claimed it would be “evil” to ban the abortion of babies once their heartbeat has been heard.

House Bill 481 forbids abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected except in cases of rape, incest, physical medical emergencies, and pregnancies deemed “medically futile.” It has been passed by both chambers of the state legislature and currently awaits a signature from Republican Gov. Brian Kemp.

Abrams, a former minority leader of the Georgia House who ran unsuccessfully for governor last year, sat down Sunday to discuss the bill with MSNBC’s Joy Reid.

"People are pretty appalled by the fact that he signed what is, I think, the most restrictive anti-abortion bill in the country, so you have some folks that are talking boycott and saying Hollywood should boycott the state of Georgia,” Reid said, Townhall reported. In fact, Kemp has not yet signed HB 481, and its controversial exceptions make it weaker than most heartbeat bills. “What do you make of these calls to boycott the state of Georgia?"

Abrams answered that she doesn’t support the boycott calls by celebrities and entertainment unions because you “re-victimize women in particular when you take away the jobs that have come to the state,” but blasted the fact that “the governor has pushed such an abominable and evil bill that is so restrictive,” as “not only bad for morality and our humanity, it's bad for business."

Appearing the next day on “Fox & Friends,” former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee responded that it was “disgusting, it’s sad, it’s sick” for Abrams to “make this comment that it’s perfectly OK to kill the heartbeat of a baby because it’s good for business.”

“I hope that somewhere among Democrats who even, perhaps believe in abortion, they recognize that the science on this, and they love to talk about science all the time,” Huckabee went on. “Then let’s talk about the science of biology and stop the madness of killing babies with a heartbeat. Surely we’re civilized enough to think that that’s just flat-out evil.”

While abortion advocates continue working to scandalize support for the pro-life measure, the Family Policy Alliance of Georgia (FPAG) sees an opportunity to punish Democrats such as Reps. Mary Williams and Erick Allen in 2020 for opposing it, Patch reported.

"We strive for a Georgia where life is cherished, and the Heartbeat Bill takes a great step toward protecting the most vulnerable among us," FPAG executive director Cole Muzio said. "These representatives in competitive districts took a position contrary to nearly 70 percent of Americans — that unborn children with beating hearts have value and are worth protecting. We plan to take this message to their districts, identify candidates who will stand on the side of life, and support their candidacies."

On top of the moral implications of Abrams’ attack on heartbeat protections, Abrams’ claim to oppose a boycott over the law seemingly contradicts comments she made last month arguing it was “very short-sighted for the business community not to be engaged right now” in rallying pressure against the law.

“(T)he issue here is we do not often tie women’s autonomy to our economics. But they’re directly linked,” she said. “And when women start saying, ‘I’m not moving to Georgia because they have this abominable bill stripping women of autonomy and their choices,’ we will see a result.”

Gov. Kemp is standing by the bill, declaring that it “reaffirms our priorities and who we are as a state,” and that “I can’t govern because I’m worried about what someone in Hollywood thinks about me. I ran the last two years on these issues, and I got elected with the largest number of votes in the history of the state of Georgia, and I’m doing what I told people I would do.”

Featured Image
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin

News ,

Pro-infanticide Virginia Gov. Northam signs law criminalizing animal cruelty

Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

RICHMOND, April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam recently signed into law bipartisan legislation toughening the state’s protection of animals against potential abusers, inviting a new wave of critiques for the embattled Democrat’s inhumane view of babies born alive after a failed abortion. 

SB 1604, named Tommie’s Law after a pit bull that died after being set on fire earlier this year, provides that anyone who "tortures, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain," or "cruelly and unnecessarily beats, maims or mutilates any dog or cat" has committed a felony punishable by up to five years in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Previously, such acts were only felonies if the animal died from its injuries.

The legislation won unanimous support from both chambers of the state legislature and was signed into law last week, ABC News reports. “This bill allows our officers to prosecute cruelty regardless of lifesaving medical interventions," said Christie Chipps Peters, director of Richmond Animal Care and Control. "We are grateful to everyone that made this change a reality.”

American Greatness writer Debra Heine notes that in 2017, Virginia animal welfare PAC Humane Dominion endorsed Northam as “the humane leader Virginia’s animals need.”

But while few if any will find Tommie’s Law itself objectionable, Northam and Virginia Democrats’ enthusiasm for protecting animals from violence stands in stark contrast to their support for killing preborn babies moments before birth and leaving newborns to die after failed abortions.

In late January, video went viral from a hearing in which Republican Del. Todd Gilbert grilled Democrat Del. Kathy Tran on her bill to repeal regulations on late-term abortions. He asked if her bill would allow an abortion as late as when a mother “has physical signs that she is about to give birth.” Tran answered that “I don't think we have a limit in the bill [...] my bill would allow that, yes.”

The bill was soon tabled, but the ensuing controversy led to Northam defending the bill on the grounds that in cases of “severe deformities” or a “nonviable” baby, he said, a born-alive infant would be “delivered,” “kept comfortable,” but after that the child would “be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro said Northam's comments amounted to defense for "pure infanticide."

Northam later said he had no regrets about his words.

Northam’s remarks, along with the introduction of radical pro-abortion bills in states like New York, set off a national firestorm including federal anti-infanticide legislation, large-scale pro-life protests and prayer gatherings, and a sudden 10-point spike in pro-life public opinion in February.

“If we’re really at the point where our country can’t agree that killing babies who have been born is always wrong,” PowerLine’s Paul Mirengoff lamented, “then it’s not easy to see how we remain one society, no matter how strongly we agree that cruelty to animals is wrong.”

Featured Image
Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin


‘Have an abortion already!’: Argentine teachers give schoolkids pro-abortion Easter eggs

Martin M. Barillas Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin
By Martin Barillas

BUENOS AIRES, April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A group of teachers in Argentina distributed to children sugar-coated treats resembling Easter eggs that bore the slogan “Aborta Ya,” which is Spanish for “Have an abortion already!”

Teachers belonging to a radical feminist group engaged in a pro-abortion campaign in advance of Easter and Holy Week when Argentines prepare to commemorate the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. In La Matanza, a jurisdiction on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, the national capital, teachers in the public schools distributed green sugar-coated eggs bearing the motto “Aborto Ya” as part of a wider effort they called “Abort the little surprise.”

On Twitter, one observer commented, “I support the legalization of abortion,” while asking who could possibly think that distributing the pro-abortion ‘Easter’ eggs to children was a good idea.” “This is not a game,” the commenter wrote. “Be smart.”

Outraged parents also went to social media to voice their indignation. One parent wrote on Facebook, “If they don’t want kids, why to they use them?” Another parent, who noted that many families do not want their children involved in adult issues, wrote, “Children are innocent and should not be enslaved to ideology.”

Another called for a law to prevent indoctrination of children by educators. “A law is needed right now that will impose serious penalties on groups of teachers who indoctrinate children in any ideology,” one wrote. The commenter added, “Since they have demanded laicism [secularism], then filling kids’ heads with any other ideology should also be banned. What happens is that the intelligence of the teachers in general is insufficient for them to distinguish between teaching critical thinking and transmitting ideology.”

Since December, after the Argentine Senate rejected a proposed law that would have decriminalized abortion, there have been contending marches and demonstrations by leftist feminists and pro-life advocates. Pro-abortion activists have worn green kerchiefs as an organizing symbol and also used green to color the sugary eggs distributed to schoolchildren. In contrast, pro-life activists wear sky blue bandannas, recalling the color of Argentina’s national flag. Pro-life activists rallied in Buenos Aires in March, using the motto “Let us save two lives” to counter the pro-abortion message.

Featured Image
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne


Justin Trudeau threatens to sue conservative leader for calling him a liar

Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

OTTAWA, April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Conservative leader Andrew Scheer is challenging Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to “get on” with suing him for defamation for his remarks about Trudeau’s alleged role in the SNC-Lavalin corruption scandal.

Scheer announced Sunday that Trudeau’s lawyer, Julian Porter, sent him a letter threatening to sue him for his March 29 statement accusing Trudeau of political interference and lying to Canadians.

But Scheer has fired back and lawyered up, stating he stands by everything he said and that he and all Canadians would welcome a chance to have Trudeau and others testify in open court.

“If Mr. Trudeau believes he has a case against me, I urge him to follow through on his threat immediately,” Scheer said in a Facebook post. “Canadians want this scandal to be investigated in a legal setting where Liberals do not control the proceedings.”

Scheer also called the threatened lawsuit “an intimidation tactic” aimed at silencing the Conservatives, who have been calling for an independent probe of “Lavscam” since the scandal broke in February.

“This is what Justin Trudeau does when you stand up to him. He threatens you,” Scheer said. “He did it to Jody Wilson-Raybould and now he’s doing it to us. Like her, we will not back down.”

Former attorney general Wilson-Raybould contends that Trudeau and top Liberal officials inappropriately pressured her over four months to intervene in the criminal prosecution of Montreal-based global engineering firm SNC-Lavalin on corruption and bribery charges related to its past government contracts in Libya.

She testified last month to the justice committee that she believes she was moved from justice to veterans affairs in January because she refused to grant SNC-Lavalin’s request for a deferred prosecution agreement rather than a criminal trial. A criminal conviction would bar the engineering giant from receiving government contracts for 10 years.

Wilson-Raybould resigned from veterans affairs February 12, and Treasury Board president Jane Philpott quit in March, citing her lack of confidence in the Liberal government’s handling of the affair.

In what has been dubbed the “Tuesday Night massacre,” Trudeau turfed both Wilson-Raybould and Philpott out of the Liberal caucus last week, citing a breakdown of trust.

Trudeau’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts, resigned February 18 and Canada’s top bureaucrat Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick is retiring in April.

Wilson-Raybould implicated both men in her testimony and stated that Wernick made “veiled threats” regarding her job during a December 19 telephone call.

Both Butts and Wernick testified twice to the Liberal-dominated justice committee, which voted in March 19 to end its investigation without granting a second appearance to Wilson-Raybould.

In response, Wilson-Raybould sent the committee materials corroborating her initial testimony, including audio of her secretly taped call with Wernick, which the committee released March 29.

Scheer’s statement published the same day contended that the “documents and recordings are concrete evidence that proves Justin Trudeau led a campaign to politically interfere in SNC-Lavalin’s criminal prosecution. He personally gave the orders and when the former Attorney General refused to follow them and break the law, she was fired.”

Moreover, the former attorney general “repeatedly told the Prime Minister and his top officials that their actions were ‘entirely inappropriate’ and amounted to ‘political interference’. Despite her objections, the Clerk of the Privy Council pressured her and made it clear that her job was on the line,” Scheer stated.

Trudeau “also told Canadians what he knew to be false. He knew that his Attorney General had serious concerns about his plan to get SNC-Lavalin off of serious criminal charges. But he looked Canadians in the eye and told them that no one had raised concerns with him,” the Tory leader contended.

Porter’s letter alleges that Scheer’s statement contains “highly defamatory comments about Prime Minister Trudeau,” as reported in the CBC.

Trudeau “supports wide-ranging and vigorous political debate on matters of public policy. However, your statement, in its entirety, is beyond the pale of fair debate and is libellous of my client personally and in the way of his occupation as prime minister,” said Porter.

It is “entirely false” to suggest that Trudeau “personally subverted the judicial process” or “acted with malice and an improper purpose” in moving Wilson-Raybould to another portfolio, he said.

It’s also “entirely false” to suggest that Trudeau was aware of Wilson-Raybould’s concern that he was politically interfering in the SNC case but lied to Canadians about it, Porter said.

Scheer’s lawyer, Peter Downard, responded by letter Sunday that Scheer “will not be intimidated” and that the leader of the official opposition is performing his “constitutional duty” to hold the government to account.

If Trudeau “actually intends” to sue, he “must immediately take steps to preserve all relevant documents” and “to notify all members of his government involved in this matter, past and present, that they can expect to be called to testify,” said Downard.

If the prime minister does not proceed with the lawsuit, Downard added, Scheer will conclude that Trudeau “has properly acknowledged that Mr. Scheer’s statements were appropriate and grounded in evidence before the Canadian people.”

Featured Image
Bishop Eric de Moulins-Beaufort
Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent

Blogs ,

New French bishops’ head follows pope in linking sex abuse crisis to power abuse

Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Jeanne Smits

April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Homosexual activist Frédéric Martel is at it again. Shortly after the election of the new president of the French Bishops conference, Bishop Eric de Moulins-Beaufort, Martel retweeted a short clip from a TV interview with the bishop in Lourdes where the bishops were holding their general assembly, accusing him of “disastrous” words about homosexuality.

The retweeted excerpt had been published with this comment: “Staggering comments by @Mgr_EMB, new president of the French bishops conference, former parish priest of St. Paul in the Marais #Paris4, who makes a link between homosexuality, transgenderism, and recent pedophilia cases in the Church.”

Frédéric Martel commented in turn: “The disastrous, absurd and incompetent declarations of the new president of the French bishops conference, Eric de Moulins-Beaufort @Mgr_EMB, former parish priest of the gay neighborhood of the Marais. With that, he's going to make his entry into the re-edition of my book #SODOMA. Poor Church of France!”

In Sodoma (in English: In the Closet of the Vatican), Martel claims that a vast majority of Catholic cardinals, bishops, priests and seminarians in the Vatican, and to some extent elsewhere, are closeted homosexuals who are all the more strict in their affirmation that homosexuality is evil because they are hiding their own “orientation.” The book is full of approximations and innuendo, primarily accusing those who uphold traditional morality.

The same method was used by Martel on Twitter. Calling Bishop de Moulins-Beaufort a “former parish priest of the gay neighborhood of the Marais,” for instance, Martel suggested that he was at the head of a gay-friendly parish. But this was not the case. The Parisian church of Saint-Paul is at the edge of the historic and expensive Marais neighborhood that has been largely taken over by the homosexual community, but the closest Paris has to a gay-friendly parish is that of Saint-Merri, near the Beaubourg Center farther west.

The clip itself – which is not sourced and only contains a short, probably truncated statement by Moulins-Beaufort – is very far from proving that the bishop would have made a link between homosexuality and sex-abuse cases involving minors.

The bishop said: “As for me, I think that the criminalization of homosexuality looks like a misguided path. Homosexuality is a complex phenomenon that we don't know how to analyze properly today. On my part, I think that we – and when I say ‘we’ I'm talking about we, the Church but perhaps also society in general – have a lack of  analytical tools. We would try to make it out for a form of sexuality among others, because there would also be transgenderism and a whole range of other possibilities. We see a whole lot of suffering there. What impresses me personally, in the affairs of these last months, is the revelation of all the violence that sexuality contains.”

Whatever the bishop was saying here, he is certainly not talking about a link between homosexuality and sex abuse.

But his quote attracted dozens of angry and insulting comments, probably because of the word “suffering,” which is more or less taboo when used in the context of homosexuality. Casting a shadow on the homosexual lifestyle or even suggesting that being “gay” is a lot less gay than it seems is equated with considering homosexuality to be a problem and not a new norm.

Lack of clarity was one of the reasons the “Manif pour tous” in France failed in its attempts to stop the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” Some of the organizers, who were also the most visible ones, at least put a lot of energy in preventing spokespeople from talking about the suffering or unhappiness of homosexual persons, either during press conferences or at the famous pink and blue marches through Paris. The idea was that you should acknowledge the “love” and “value” of homosexual relationships while opposing same-sex “marriage” in order to prevent children from growing up with “two mothers” or “two fathers.”

Ironically, Moulins-Beaufort recently wrote a lengthy article about the sex-abuse scandal and the “sideration” of the Catholic Church that prevented it from taking necessary action. In the August 2018 number of the Nouvelle Revue Théologique, a Belgian Catholic academic publication, he reflected on the theme: “What has happened to us?” His 26-page article does not include a single mention of homosexuality or same-sex attraction.

Instead, he made a distinction between pedophilia, collecting pornographic images of children and ephebophilia on the one hand, which he presents as involving a relatively small number of offending priests, at least in France, and on the other hand “not directly sexual acts” of improper or ambiguous familiarity with certain adolescents, boys or girls over whom the largest category of offending priests had some sort of psychological power. Full-fledged rape with penetration was presented as a possible outcome of these attitudes but not as a systematic one.

Concerning (rare) cases of pedophilia among priests, Moulins-Beaufort explained in his article that they are linked to particular “sexual urges” that can explain their primary interest for the priesthood, which allows for proximity between adults and children, and he added that “the hope that the man having such urges can be healed seems very limited.”

He also wrote: “Perhaps there is also a generational effect, as some of the rhetoric of the 1970s, even at academic level, could be seen as having encouraged sexual initiation at an early age,” making clear however that these urges are always “compulsive.”

In France, the clerical sex-abuse scandal is generally referred to as the “pedophile priests’ scandal.” This terminology, wrote Moulins-Beaufort, “has certainly not helped to confront the global problem.”

On the subject of true pedophiles, the bishop wondered whether they could truly accede to the priesthood.

“Study is necessary and surely also a canonical clarification: is it possible to simply consider null and void the ordination of a man whose pedophilic personality is revealed later on, as if the grace of the priestly character could not truly ‘attach’ itself to such a structure?” he asked> “If this were true – and it remains to be established – the implementation of this point would require, in the case of sexual abuse or aggression, carefully to distinguish between structurally pedophilic personalities and sexually immature personalities who would have been pushed by circumstance to commit one or more grave acts but who in other circumstances would not have fallen.”

Regarding pornographic addiction, Moulins-Beaufort regretted that many offenders did not realize that the children depicted had suffered abuse of which they were in truth accomplices.

On the chapter of ephebophilia, which he said manifests itself as a desire to touch the genitals of adolescent males, no mention is made of homosexuality or a disordered same-sex attraction.

As to the most frequent abuse cases, he said they involve ambiguous physical contact that “sometimes” lead to sexual contact, which in turn “often, but not always, do not reach the state of penetration.” He explained that in many cases, priests who were appreciated by young people and their families — and who were fascinated by their personal power to allow young people's intelligence and qualities to develop — also in a context of the “blindness that comes with sin,” allowed themselves to be carried away and even to deny the gravity of the sins committed.

Why didn't the Church talk about this? The desire to “protect the institution” is not a sufficient explanation, said the bishop. From sheer disbelief on the part of the authorities to requests for silence coming from the hurt families themselves, he said many different scenarios existed at a time when the lasting consequences of sexual abuse during childhood were not correctly assessed.

An interesting part of his commentary talked about forgiveness, of which an “important element” has been neglected, he said. “This negligence says something about the spiritual state of the times in which we live.”

The element of “reparation” of evil is not taken into account enough, even when “Christ's own mercy never consists in letting us think that sin is not so serious, but on the contrary in revealing its mortiferous character in the very act through which he forgives us, so that we can become actors of our own conversion, slowly acquiring a true detestation of sin and the desire to live otherwise.”

He recalled how in the Middle Ages the guilty were prepared to commit themselves to lifelong expiation.

“After all, in a world marked by sin, the fact that persons who sinned gravely, causing a social disorder, should accept that their sin deprive them from an accomplishment they had dreamed of in their lives, is properly Christian,” he explained, adding that it was necessary to “accept that forgiveness does not get rid of the consequences of sin but on the contrary, helps to bear their burden without being crushed by it.”

Moulins-Beaufort also reflected on the necessity of chastity in different walks of life: a virtue that has been badly affected, he said, by the disappearance of codes of conduct among people in authority and their subordinates, between men and women. These codes ended up at the end of the 19th century by going into “details that turned into a mania” before disappearing almost completely at the end of the 20th century. Now “it is up to everyone to determine which relationship they want with this or that other,” he said.

Concerning chastity, he wrote: “An effort of serious reflection and attention needs to take place so that men and women, adults and children acquire a sense of chastity that not only consists in avoiding sexual gestures but rather leads people to be in a true relationship regarding others, which leaves the other in true freedom.”

While the bishop’s reflections deserve thought, they do leave aside a number of factors that other serious observers have not failed to point out, such as the imprudent ordination of homosexual young men and the presence of gay subcultures in certain church institutions.

When Martel fumed at Moulin-Beaufort’s words about homosexuality that in fact were not linked to the sex-abuse crisis in the Church, he didn't realize the bishop is more on the line of Pope Francis and the recent sex abuse summit in the Vatican that also left the problem of homosexuality unaddressed.

Moulins-Beaufort has a reputation for conservatism – more so, in any case, than his predecessor at the head of the French bishops conference, Bishop Georges Pontier of Marseille. But in his article on sex abuse, he wrote:

The liturgy of our time leaves less room for the risk of seeing in the priest the possessor of an esoteric knowledge, beyond access for the ordinary mortal. It purifies a great deal of the sacred aura and the daunting ambiguities that are attached to it, favoring instead the service of sanctification of the people of God according to the alliance wanted by the holy God who will leave no fault unpunished. On the same lines, canon law imposes that the burden of leading a parish or the whole Christian community should be taken up in a relationship of communion marked by giving responsibility to councils, be they pastoral or economical.

Such incrimination, even if it remains discrete, of the solemn ancient form of the liturgy is questionable to say the least. Without using the word “clericalism,” the evil to which Pope Francis ascribes responsibility for the present sex abuse scandals, the Bishop of Reims and new head of the French bishops looks as if he is treading the party line.

In a former article, days before Moulins-Beaufort was elected president of the bishops conference, LifeSite published an account of his participation at the official opening of the Grand Mosque of Reims.

Featured Image
Pope Francis meets with Italy's most prominent abortion advocate, Emma Bonino, whom he has praised as a "forgotten great."
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

Blogs ,

VIDEO: Did Pope Francis really praise nation’s leading abortionist?

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Being pro-life is a sine-qua-non (essential condition) for Catholics. In fact, the Catholic Church has been one of the only holdouts on the international stage still defending the right to life for pre-born children. 

For good reason in 2004, at the behest of Pope St. John Paul II, the bishops of the United States came up with a policy never to honor pro-abortion politicians since it would “suggest support for their actions.” That’s why the pro-life movement in Italy was in shock when Pope Francis praised Italy’s leading abortion proponent in comments to the largest newspaper.

The Pope called her one of the nation’s “forgotten greats” comparing her to great historical figures such as Konrad Adenauer.

Today, in Episode 4 of The John-Henry Westen Show, we’ll review the evidence on the incomprehensible case of the Pope’s praise for abortionist turned abortion-pushing politician Emma Bonino which has even led to her being invited to speak at Catholic Churches!

Remember the show appears every Tuesday. The John-Henry Westen Show is a short weekly commentary on the most important news developments in the Church and culture. We are beginning with a series laying out the hard evidence for our concerns with Pope Francis. 

In Episode 1, I explained why it is hard, but essential that we are willing to raise concerns about Pope Francis. Doing so is an act of charity to both the Pope and the Church.

Then in Episode 2, I discussed the Pope's harmful ambiguity on the question of cohabitation before marriage.

In Episode 3 I point out that the Pope has caused grave confusion about homosexual relationships.

The John-Henry Westen Show is available by video on the show’s YouTube channel, and right here on my LifeSite blog.

It is also available in audio format on platforms such as SpotifySoundcloud, and Pippa. We are awaiting approval for iTunes and Google Play as well. To subscribe for the audio version on various channels, visit the webpage here.

We’ve created a special email list for the show so that we can notify you every week when we post a new episode. Please sign up now by clicking here, or fill out the form at the bottom of this post. You can also subscribe to the YouTube channel, and you’ll be notified by YouTube when there is new content.

Every week we will also be publishing the full transcript right here on my blog, in case you prefer to read the content. However, the show was created for video in order to show you, directly, the evidence of what I’m discussing. I encourage you first and foremost to watch the video commentaries.

You can send me feedback, or ideas for show topics by emailing [email protected]

Watch Episode 3 here:

Listen to Episode 3 here:

Transcript: Pope Francis’ praise for Italy’s leading abortion pusher (herself an illegal abortionist)

Hi, I’m John-Henry Westen, co-founder and Editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews.

At LifeSite we are very aware of the seriousness of criticizing the Pope. However, Canon law # 212 §3 speaks about this matter when it says that the laity “have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church.” 

Canon law adds: “They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.”

Let’s start with a prayer. In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

On February 8, 2016 one of Italy’s most prominent dailies, Corriere Della Serra, published an interview with Pope Francis in which he praised Italy’s leading proponent of abortion – Emma Bonino – as one of the nation’s “forgotten greats,” comparing her to great historical figures such as Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schuman. 

More than that, the Pope has met with Bonino on several occasions and her close association with the Pope has even led to her speaking at several Catholic Churches in Italy – all the while being the chief promoter of abortion in the country.

Here is the poster of her presentation 2017 at one Catholic Church and video of her talk there - where pro-life protesters in the audience were thrown out of the Church. And here is video of her still promoting abortion in 2018.

In order to understand the gravity of all this you’d have to imagine that the Pope called Hilary Clinton of one America’s “forgotten greats,” but that would only work if Hilary started out as an illegal abortionist.

That’s why the pro-life movement in Italy was stunned and horrified at Pope Francis’ remarks.

Responding to the Pope’s praise of Bonino, pro-life leaders in Italy expressed disbelief.  “How can the pope praise a woman that is best known in Italy for practicing illegal abortion and promoting abortion?” commented Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro, who then the head of the Rome office of Human Life International.

As I’ve said before, pro-life and pro-family leaders would be rejoicing if the Holy Father was meeting with abortionists and promoters of abortion if it was clear that he was calling them to repentance.  Without that we are left with grave confusion. 

Suggestions that the Pope did not know about Bonino’s controversial stances are dismissed by Italians since she was famously arrested for illegal abortions and then became a politician who led the fight for the legalization of abortion in the nation. 

Beyond that, Pope Francis has been acquainted with Bonino and her Radical Party leadership for years and been openly criticized for his warm relations with them.

In her capacity as Italian foreign minister, Bonino, along with President Georgio Napolitano and his key ministers, was granted an audience with Pope Francis on June 8, 2013. In April 2014, Bonino called Pope Francis to help end the hunger strike of Radical Party leader Marco Pannella. The Pope made the call and promised to join Pannella in his bid to better conditions in Italian prisons.  In May 2015 the Vatican Insider reported that Pope Francis personally invited Bonino to an audience in the Paul VI Hall. 

Bonino had an illegal abortion as a young woman then co-founded and worked with the Information Centre on Sterilization and Abortion which boasted over 10,000 abortions. There are famous photos of Bonino performing illegal abortions using a homemade device operated by a bicycle pump.  Arrested for the then-illegal activity she spent a few days in jail and was acquitted and entered politics. As a politician she has championed abortion, euthanasia, homosexual “marriage,” legalization of recreational drugs, graphic sex education, and more.

She’s great friends with international abortion pusher and globalist George Soros who gave her an award for women’s rights.

Pope Francis admires Bonino’s work with immigration. However, as Christian politicians increasingly struggle to remain true to pro-life and pro-family stances in public office and endure much criticism, it was harmful for the Pope to openly praise, without clear and necessary qualifications, a politician such as Bonino. It undermines the sacrifices many pro-life politicians have made and may even bring them to question the need to remain solid in their voting patterns.  It also undermines decades of heroic efforts by Italian pro-life leaders who have actively opposed Bonino’s anti-life and anti-family actions.

The U.S. Bishops highlight the problem in their 2004 document, Catholics in Political Life. “Our obligation as bishops at this time is to teach clearly,” they wrote, also saying they must warn and counsel politicians that by supporting abortion they are cooperating in evil. Moreover, they said that persistently pro-abortion politicians should not be honored by the Catholic community and by Catholic institutions. The bishops’ document directed that such politicians “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Remember at LifeSite we’re about Caritas in Veritate - the truth in love. That’s what we’re after. 

May God bless you.

Featured Image
Cardinal Robert Sarah Twitter
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike


Cardinal Sarah explains why female priests will ‘never happen’ in Catholic Church

Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – African Cardinal Robert Sarah said that the question of ordaining women to the priesthood has already been "resolved" by a previous pope who declared it an impossibility. 

"This question is already resolved: John Paul II affirmed that the Church did not have the power to ordain women. His declaration used a definitive formulation. 'This door is closed,'" stated the  Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship in an April 6 interview with Catholic website Aleteia.

"Francis has confirmed this by saying: 'The Church has spoken and has said no,'" he added. 

Speaking about the “pseudo-reformers” of the Catholic Church, the Cardinal pointed out that the Church was built by Jesus who endowed it with his immutability.  

“I cannot change what I have not built myself and which, therefore, does not belong to me. No one can change the Church of Jesus,” he said. 

Cardinal Sarah discussed many of the pressing topics that are currently troubling the Catholic Church. Among them is a “division within the Church” which is “tragic.” This division, the African prelate explained, “manifests itself mainly on doctrinal, moral, and disciplinary levels. Everyone now says and thinks what they want. How could we not be concerned if it seems that the Church no longer has doctrine or clear moral teaching?”

One cause of confusion and division in the Church is on the subject of female ordination. German Bishop Franz-Josef Bode has recently proposed to ordain female deacons, even if this might cause a “schism.” Bode is the Vice President of the German Bishops' Conference.

Sarah stated that he would be “happy” to give women more “responsibility in the Church” and that they have “an important place and role in the Church and in society.” “But,” he adds, “they [women] are not valued any better by entrusting them with duties and a mission that God, in his infinite Wisdom, reserves for men. From the Old Testament, God chose Aaron and his sons to exercise His priesthood.”

“It is surprising,” commented the Cardinal, “to insist on a possible ordination of women, because it seems to me, after more than 2,000 years of Christianity, that this shows a lack of faith. The ordination of women will never happen in the Catholic Church even if there were no priests left in the world. Not out of contempt for women, but because it is not in God’s will and plan.”

In light of this current moral and doctrinal confusion, the prelate recommended that Catholics “hold on to the boat [the Church] firmly, and pray. In other words, it is our responsibility to stand firmly by the Doctrine, the teaching of the Church, and to pray.” 

Pope Francis has rejected in the recent past the proposal to ordain women, yet his recent praise of a bishop – Bishop Fritz Lobinger – has then caused confusion, inasmuch as Lobinger is himself a promoter of the idea to ordained female married priests. In 2016, Pope Francis also established a Commission on the history of female deacons. Its 2018 final report has yet to be published by the Pope.

Featured Image
Peter Kwasniewski Peter Kwasniewski Follow Dr. Peter


How a good priest should respond when bishop or pope asks him to do something bad

Peter Kwasniewski Peter Kwasniewski Follow Dr. Peter
By Dr. Peter Kwasniewski

April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – There is a kind of priest, I’m told, who always does what his bishop tells him to do. No matter what it is, he is “obedient” to the bishop. If there is a notorious dissenter from Church teaching but the bishop says “go ahead and give him communion,” then the priest does it. Or if the bishop dislikes the traditional Latin Mass, the priest, citing “obedience,” won’t celebrate that Mass, in spite of its being a spiritual treasure for himself and the people. If the bishop thinks an eastward orientation (ad orientem) for worship is a non-starter, the priest will not break away from the bad custom of versus populum.

Is this really a problem? Yes.

Obedience—especially in situations that don’t require obedience—cannot absolve us from listening to and following our consciences. Otherwise, we are reduced to robots. If I were a priest, there is no way in conscience, no matter what a bishop thought, that I could give holy communion to a public sinner, or refrain from offering the usus antiquior, which is a Roman Catholic priest’s birthright and canonical right. Nor does a bishop have the authority to forbid any priest to celebrate ad orientem or to expect that he will place his ordinary’s personal preferences over 2,000 years of Catholic tradition, which (mirabile dictu) even the new missal allows for.

Without meaning to pass judgment on any particular man of the cloth, this path of false obedience is a convenient way to offload one’s conscience on to another and to continue on in peace without having to make waves. While no one should go out of his way to make waves, and everyone appreciates peace and quiet, at some point one has to stop ignoring the demands placed by the moral law upon oneself, not to mention the spiritual needs of the priest and his flock. 

As the Abbé de Nantes once said: “The truth is, speaking in general, this attitude of obedience in all things also sits very well with ambition, concern for material goods, a peaceful life and indolence. Whether acknowledged or not, it must be the case that these secondary advantages give rise to a sense of shame and to a confused impression of surrender, as when a man gives himself good reasons to choose a bad path because of the advantages he finds therein.”

Once a man has compromised so much and traveled so far down that path, it is not easy to turn back. At that point he will need a deep conversion, a grace not everyone will end up receiving or cooperating with. 

Consider someone like former Cardinal McCarrick. What is he thinking at this point? He has lost everything. Why not repent? Alas, the devil does not so easily loosen his grip upon those who have danced to his tune! Just one more reason to take refuge in the safe harbor of tradition, where we know we are safe from the buffeting winds of the Zeitgeist.

I know of clergy who fit the description given by the Abbé de Nantes. More often than not, they are classic cases of the “conservative”: one who ultimately thinks truth is relative to authority. To be a good conservative is, on this model, to obey most perfectly all the commands given by the superior. (John Lamont has subjected this mentality to a withering critique.) Should we be surprised when such conservatives turn out to be evolutionists and opportunists as well? 

For example, when the Pope attempted to change Catholic teaching on the intrinsic grave evil of adulterous sexual acts or on the inherent permissibility of the death penalty, we saw certain conservatives lining up to pay obeisance before the ink had even dried on the new versions of the Decalogue and the Catechism. No departure from Scripture or Tradition is too great for a conservative, who, depending on which way the wind is blowing, is as ready to wave the magic wand of “development of doctrine” as the nuttiest progressive.

One such conservative had this to say: “Theologians have been arguing that we could make this next step, as a true development of doctrine: to intend the death of a human person violates their human dignity and that the death penalty is always and everywhere non-admissible.”

You see: he simply bends the knee to the master’s will, regardless of the implications. My recent book Tradition and Sanity devotes chapter 12 to what those consequences are—and they are pretty grim.

Every Christian is required to know the first principles of faith and reason and to make judgments based on them, rather than letting his or her principles be dictated and manipulated by superiors. The great work by Bd. John Henry Cardinal Newman, “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk,” is a fine treatment of this subject (see Section 5 in particular). To the extent that faith and reason are rejected, we will not fail to see the simultaneous breakdown of theology and of sanity—just as Frank Sheed would have predicted.

Those who practice a false obedience give a bad name to a noble virtue. If the pope told them to sell out Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, they would do it; after all, “obedience.” And the money could be given to the poor, no less.

There is something extremely sinister about this mentality of obedience to whatever the superior says. It is Nietzschean, inasmuch as it lives from a cynicism about moral absolutes; Machiavellian, inasmuch as it builds careers and wins promotions. It is the kind of attitude that empowers and protects abusers. False obedience (otherwise known as compliance and sycophancy), ambition, and worldliness all go together in a sort of witch’s brew. Vade retro Satana (go back, Satan).

Featured Image
Stephen Kokx Stephen Kokx Follow Stephen


2020 Democratic primary: Civil war between socialist radicals and establishment elites

Stephen Kokx Stephen Kokx Follow Stephen
By Stephen Kokx


April 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — “This isn’t your grandpa’s Democratic Party.” Or so the saying goes.

Heck, the way the last three years have progressed, this isn’t even your older brother’s Democratic Party.

The leftward lurch, nay, leap of the onetime home of Bill Clinton’s centrist politics into the deep waters of socialism during the Trump era has changed seemingly forever the party historically associated with blue-collar, middle-of-the-road Americans.

Gone are the days of talking about “safe, legal, and rare” abortions. Now supporting anything other than infanticide makes you a traitor to the cause.

Gone too are when Democratic senators like Dianne Feinstein of “the dogma lives loudly in you” fame warned against the dangers of unchecked immigration. Watch her do so in this video taken from the early ’90s.

Consider that just last week, Democrat presidential hopeful Julián Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio, proposed decriminalizing illegal immigration, a measure that would essentially make America’s southern border disappear. Socialist congresswoman and doomsday prophetess Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems to support the idea.

Here’s a short list of some of the other radical policies Democrats are currently kicking around: decriminalizing prostitution; getting rid of the Electoral College; expanding the Supreme Court; universal daycare; “free” college tuition; abolishing ICE; legalizing marijuana; reparations for slavery; and, of course, the Green New Deal.

Question: Will any of this help them win Michigan; Pennsylvania; or Wisconsin, where a socially conservative judge just beat out a feminist, Planned Parenthood-backed candidate for a seat on the state’s Supreme Court?

The growing extremism on display in today’s Democratic Party means their 2020 presidential primary will serve as an inflection point that may irreversibly change the party and potentially the country as a whole.

On the one hand, you have the younger, communist-loving, LGBT social justice warriors sympathetic to Antifa and supportive of Black Lives Matter who draw inspiration from Bernie Sanders and the aforementioned 29-year-old Ocasio-Cortez.

On the other side of the Democrat Party exists the establishment, limousine liberals in the mold of Nancy Pelosi, who just turned 79.

The fissure between the two camps is widening with each passing day. All indications are that the party’s future leaders do not want to go back to its moderate past. Hence, the knives are out for former V.P. Joe Biden, who represents everything the base of the party wants to move beyond: middle-class white male America.

Despite polls suggesting that Biden is the likeliest candidate to beat Trump in 2020, other Democrats in the race desperately want to take out his knees before he gets any momentum. The recent media coverage of Biden’s creepy touching of women is no doubt part of that effort.

True to form, the establishment was quick to counter the smear attempt.

MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski, daughter of the late globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski, an adviser to Jimmy Carter and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, came to Biden’s rescue on her show with Joe Scarborough the other week, saying of him: “he is extremely affectionate, extremely flirtatious in a completely safe way.

How is this excuse anything other than a double standard for Biden and a complete betrayal of the #MeToo movement?

Pelosi, Georgia politician Stacey Abrams, and Republican anti-Trump CNN commentator Ana Navarro also helped brush the 76-year-old’s disturbing behavior under the rug.

The message being sent here is clear. The elites aren't going to let their candidate (who seems to also like touching children) be taken down so easily.

Biden has quickly learned that the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is going to include a lot of apologizing — not only for his weird back rubs and countless “gaffes,” but for referring to Mike Pence as a “decent guy,” for his role in the Anita Hill hearings, and for his votes on criminal justice reform.

Biden has also denounced, at least indirectly, his “privilege,” a prerequisite for any white male Democrat running for office these days.

In New York last month, Biden said to an audience, “We all have an obligation to do nothing less than change the culture in this country[.] ... This is English jurisprudential culture, a white man’s culture. It’s got to change.”

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wrote in an essay last Thursday that Biden should in fact not run. The party will tear him apart, she argues. His legacy is already set as a lion of liberalism in the U.S. Senate and as a loyal aid to the nation’s first black president. If he announces his candidacy, things will get ugly. Fast.

I tend to agree with how Noonan sees things shaking out tactically against Biden. He doesn’t need to run. In fact, he's looked old and tired when giving speeches lately — much older than he did in 2016. But it seems he thinks he has a patriotic duty to give it a go. That or he’s being pressured by international corporate elites who want a candidate who will bring to an end Trump’s anti-globalist message.

Either way, if Biden doesn’t run, unlikely as that would be, what would his absence mean for the upcoming general election?

Pat Buchanan recently said that if Biden isn’t the Democratic nominee in 2020, “Trump would be the nation’s last line of defense against the coming of a Socialist America.”

Maybe. I happen to think that even if Biden were the Democratic nominee, he’d ask someone like Kamala Harris to be his vice president in order to appease the far left in the party. It’s hard to imagine that some socialist policies wouldn’t be put into place in such an administration.

Whoever the Democratic nominee is, pro-life, pro-family Americans need to be aware that 2020, even more than 2016, may be the last chance to save the country from sliding into liberal totalitarianism.

View specific date
Print All Articles