All articles from September 10, 2019




The Pulse

  • There are no pulse articles posted on September 10, 2019.



Testimony reveals Obama AG urged prosecution of pro-life investigators Daleiden and Merritt

The revelation came out as Daleiden and Merritt face up to ten years jail time.
Featured Image
Brian Cardwell, special agent at the California Department of Justice Jim Hale / LifeSiteNews
Lianne Laurence By Lianne Laurence

Lianne Laurence By Lianne Laurence
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

PETITION: Support pro-lifers who exposed Planned Parenthood's sale of baby body parts Sign the petition here.

Sept. 13, 2019, 11:20 AM EST update: California DOJ special agent Brian Cardwell changed his story in a September 12 testimony at the preliminary hearing of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. He said September 10 the letter was from Obama A-G Loretta Lynch to California A-G Kamala Harris asking for an investigation into the two pr0-life journalists. On September 12, he said the letter was from four congresspeople to both Lynch and Harris. See report here.

Sept. 12, 2019, 10:22 AM EST update: Cardwell's testimony continues Thursday, not Wednesday as LifeSiteNews initially reported.

SAN FRANCISCO, California, September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch requested the investigation of pro-life undercover journalists who exposed Planned Parenthood’s trafficking in baby body parts, a California Department of Justice agent testified Tuesday.

Special agent Brian Cardwell said Lynch sent a letter to California Attorney General Kamala Harris asking that David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress be investigated.

Cardwell was present at the April 6, 2015 raid of Daleiden’s Orange County apartment under a search warrant Harris authorized, he said at the criminal preliminary hearing Tuesday for Daleiden and Merritt.

The raid and search authorized by Harris, now a U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential contender, launched the current prosecution against Daleiden and Merritt.

The two pro-life undercover journalists are charged with 15 felony counts of illegal taping of confidential conversations in connection with undercover videos they released in 2015.

The groundbreaking undercover videos showed Planned Parenthood executives and workers haggling over the prices of baby body parts, picking through bloodied arms and legs of aborted babies in a pie tray, and discussing how to alter abortion methods to obtain better body parts for sale.

“We’ve always said it was a political prosecution, but hearing that Loretta Lynch was the one that instigated it, that’s a huge, huge factor,” Peter Breen, one of the lawyers representing Daleiden, told LifeSiteNews.

Cardwell also testified under cross-examination by Brentwood Ferreira, lawyer for Daleiden, that Beth Parker, the chief lawyer for Planned Parenthood in California, urged the Department of Justice agents to seize Daleiden’s documents and recording equipment.

“We’ve talked earlier during this case about a meeting that the heads of Planned Parenthoods had, with Kamala Harris in her office right around the time that Attorney General Harris was approving a search warrant [on] David’s apartment,” Breen, vice president and senior counsel of the Thomas More Society, told LifeSiteNews.

“Something stinks here in San Francisco and it’s political and goes to the highest levels,” Breen added.

Cardwell mentioned the letter from Lynch when Deputy Attorney-General Johnette Jauron asked him about the initiation of the criminal investigation into Daleiden and Merritt’s undercover operation.

“I believe there was a letter sent by Loretta Lynch to Kamala Haris requesting an investigation,” he said.

Ferreira cross-examined Cardwell on the letter because the defence had not received a copy of it from the attorney general “so I thought he was mistaken,” Ferreira told LifeSiteNews.

Cardwell said he saw the letter in January, when the attorney general’s office provided a copy for the record.

“As far as I’m concerned, Harris probably solicited the letter anyway to take heat off Planned Parenthood,” Ferreira told LifeSiteNews, “because Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation were the true engines of this prosecution.”  

Planned Parenthood lawyer Parker “brought all this stuff over to Jill Habig who was political assistant to Kamala Harris,” he said.

The criminal prosecution of Daleiden “is a complete violation of the First Amendment,” Ferreira added.

Daleiden “made his living as a journalist for the last 11 years. He has the right to have his work protected under the First Amendment and not have bogus eavesdropping charges filed by the Attorney General … at the behest of Planned Parenthood.”

Cardwell said the agents seized several laptops, thumb drives, recording equipment, and hard drives that contained some 50,000 video files.

Cardwell’s testimony continues on Thursday.

Watch this special report where LifeSite Managing Editor Patrick Craine speaks with reporter Lianne Laurence who is on the ground in San Francisco covering the criminal case against pro-life investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt:


Pope Francis welcomes honest criticism: ‘This is loving the Church’

Pope Francis told reporters he values honest and constructive criticism but not those who dispense 'arsenic pills.'
Featured Image
Diane Montagna By Diane Montagna

Diane Montagna By Diane Montagna
Diane Montagna Diane Montagna Follow Diane
By Diane Montagna

Register for the free Historic Amazon Synod Roundtable live stream  Click here.

ROME, September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis returned to the topic of his critics in America today, saying that he values honest and constructive criticism but not those who dispense “arsenic pills” or “throw a stone and then hide their hands.”

He also said that while he prays a schism will not occur, he is not afraid of it as it has always been part of the Church’s history.

The Pope’s remarks were in response to a question from the New York Times on Tuesday, during an inflight press conference on his return from a seven-day visit to the nations of Madagascar, Mozambique and Mauritius. 

They come one week after Pope Francis said “for me it’s an honor if Americans attack me,” after being handed a new French book, How America Wanted to Change the Pope, by its author. 

Picking up on last week’s comments, NYT reporter Jason Horowitz said: 

Holy Father, on the flight to Maputo, you acknowledged being under attack by a sector of the American Church. Clearly there are strong criticisms, and there are even some cardinals and bishops, TV [stations], Catholics, American websites — many criticisms. Even some very close allies have spoken about a plot against you, as have some of your allies in the Italian curia.

Is there something these critics don’t understand about your pontificate or is there something that you have learned from the criticisms [coming from] the United States? Are you afraid of a schism in the American Church and if so, is there something that you could do, dialogue to help avoid it?

Pope Francis responded by saying that “criticism is always helpful” and that one ought to ask oneself: “for me, is it true or is it not true, and up to what point?”

“Sometimes you get angry,” he said, but there’s always something to learn from it. 

Expounding on his recent comments, Pope Francis then observed that Americans aren’t his only critics. “Criticism is coming from everywhere, even from inside the curia,” he said.

A promoter of “parrhesia,” or frankness, the Pope insisted that he “likes” it when people are “honest” enough to criticize him to his face. “What I do not like is when critics operate under the table. They smile … and then they stab you in the back. This is not loyal,” he said. 

True criticism can be a constructive tool, he observed, but one has to be ready for a response and dialogue. On the other hand, those who disguise their criticism dispense “arsenic pills, somewhat like throwing a stone and hiding your hand. This doesn’t help, and it comes from closed [minded] people who don’t want to hear the response.”

When it comes to criticizing the pope, he said, “saying what you don’t like, writing an article and asking for a response, this is loyal. This is loving the Church. Instead, voicing a criticism without dialogue, without wanting an answer, is not loving the Church … it is to want to change the pope, to create schism.”

“A fair criticism is always well received, at least by me,” he said. 

“On the question of schism,” the Pope continued, “in the Church there have been many.” Noting examples of breaks that followed the First and Second Vatican Councils, he said that many have been rooted in a “rigid” attitude cloaked in a quest for “orthodoxy.”

The “best known break,” he said, was that of the traditionist prelate Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who founded the Society of St. Pius X after Vatican II. 

“There has always been a schismatic option in the Church. It is one of the actions that the Lord always leaves to human freedom,” he said. 

“I do not fear schisms. I pray for them not to happen, as the spiritual health of many people is at stake,” he said. “[I pray] there will be dialogue, that there will be correction if there is some mistake, but the path of schism is not Christian.”

It is possible that Pope Francis is thinking of his exchange with Bishop Athanasius Schneider, as he has gone some way to try to correct the misunderstanding arising from the Abu Dhabi document, which states that the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God.” Pope Francis and Bishop Schneider discussed the matter openly, in person and in writing, in March and April 2019.  

Although Pope Francis has given indications that his private understanding is that the statement regards the permissive will of God, he has so far omitted to make an official clarification of its meaning. 

For many this is not sufficient, as the difference between a private clarification and an official correction is no small thing in so grave a matter. Bishop Schneider has said the Vatican’s support for the spreading of the Abu Dhabi document, absent of an official clarification, is tantamount to “promoting the neglect of the first Commandment” and a “betrayal of the Gospel.” 


Brazilian president moves to protect schoolkids from LGBT gender ideology

President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil has announced that his administration is preparing legislation to prohibit the spreading of gender ideology in public primary schools.
Featured Image
President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil. Marcelo Chello /
Martin M. Barillas By Martin M. Barillas

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

BRASILIA, September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil has announced that his administration is preparing legislation to prohibit the spreading of gender ideology in the South American republic’s public primary schools.

President Bolsonaro announced on Twitter that he instructed the Brazilian Ministry of Education to draft a bill to protect minors in school from the gender ideology sweeping much of the world. He tweeted on September 3 that Brazil’s attorney general had declared which section of government has competence to decide on the future of the controversial ideology in schools. “The Attorney General declared who is responsible for legislating on gender ideology, since it is a federal competence. I directed the Ministry of Education, with a view toward the full protection of children, to prepare a draft law that prohibits gender ideology in elementary schools,” he wrote on Twitter.

Bolsonaro assumed office on January 1 of this year and has thus accomplished one of his campaign promises. An October 2017 public opinion survey had revealed that nine out of ten Brazilians reject gender ideology in schools. The current president is riding a wave of populism and support from conservative Christians, even among the poorest, according to the Financial Times. Bolsonaro once declared, “I’m homophobic, with pride.”

In December 2018, shortly before taking office, Bolsonaro said he wants the army to assume control over some public schools, despite criticism from teacher unions. In the poorest areas of Brazil’s major metropolitan areas, gangs armed with military weapons have engaged in open firefights with police and military. Criminal gangs seek to control whole sectors of poverty-stricken neighborhoods, where they distribute narcotics and engage in violent extortion.

Teachers have complained about violent assaults by students while also complaining about poor pay. Bolsonaro tweeted in 2018 about his prospective presidency: “One of the goals to get Brazil out of the worst positions in international education rankings is to combat the Marxist rubbish that has spread in educational institutions.”

Bolsonaro has since been subjected to criticism by members of the media and LGBT campaigners, who accuse him of “homophobia” and even racism. Nonetheless, he recently stated that Brazil will never become a haven for LGBT advocates nor for sex tourism under his watch. LGBT activists are a force to be reckoned with in Brazil: reportedly this year, more than 3 million people turned out for a gay parade in São Paulo in June.

The Folha de S. Paulo newspaper noted in a report that Bolsonaro may have been referring to a case now before Brazil’s Supreme Court regarding a law in the state of Paraná, which would ban gender ideology in the public school system. According to the newspaper, the case was brought to the high court jointly by the leftist National Confederation of Education Workers and the National Association of LGBT Human Rights Jurists. The organizations claimed that only the federal government has the authority to regulate the issue.

Governor João Doria, a possible candidate for the 2022 presidential election, tweeted on September 3 that an “unacceptable mistake” had been made in distributing materials to 8th-grade students in the state’s public school that promote what he called “gender ideology.” Doria ordered that the material be removed immediately from the schools. An investigation is expected. According to the Huffington Post, Doria pulled materials destined for science courses that include sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and discussions about “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.”

In a news conference, Doria insisted that his administration “does not do gender ideology” while reiterating that the offending materials will be removed. “It is not reasonable for children and adolescents to have this kind of subject in school. In the morning, I was informed about the existence of this text. I contacted Secretary Rossieli Soares, who was surprised by this issue.” Once Doria learned from Soares that the material was indeed found in schools, he ordered its removal.

Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies specifically excluded content on gender issues in Brazil’s National Education Plan. State and local governments followed the national government’s lead. While the terms “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” were included in Brazil’s national curriculum guidelines, the terms were removed from the text during President Michel Temer’s administration. Temer served as interim president (2016–18) following the impeachment and removal of former leftist president Dilma Rousseff, who had championed the LGBT cause.

Bolsonaro has sought to implement an education policy he called “Party-Free Education.” He and members of his cabinet have been critical of what they regard as ideological indoctrination of students at the primary, secondary, and university levels. As far back as 2014, while serving in the national legislature, Bolsonaro had pushed for the project.


Facebook suspends LifeSite staffer for posting story on ‘transgender insanity’

Madeleine Jacob was thrown into ‘Facebook jail’ for 24 hours for having posted an article critical of the 'cult of transgenderism.'
Featured Image
Madeleine Jacob, LifeSiteNews Digital Marketing Assistant
Doug Mainwaring By Doug Mainwaring

Doug Mainwaring By Doug Mainwaring
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

Update: At 6:11 pm EST, shortly after this story was published, LifeSiteNews was informed by Facebook, "It looks like we made a mistake." The original post was restored and the 24-hour ban lifted after 10 hours.

September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A LifeSiteNews staffer has been thrown into ‘Facebook jail’ for 24 hours for having posted an article critical of the “cult of transgenderism” onto one of LifeSite’s Facebook pages where she acts as manager.  

Back in early August, LifeSiteNews Digital Marketing Assistant Madeleine Jacob posted a commentary by Radiance Foundation founder Ryan Bomberger in which he criticized TV personality Mario Lopez for quickly backtracking and apologizing to pro-LGBT activists, outraged that he said children were too young to decide whether they should “transition” to another gender. 

The article was titled: "Spinelessness won’t cut it in defending our kids from transgender insanity." Bomberger offered commentary on Lopez caving into the demands of LGBT activists that he backtracks. “So the cult of transgenderism swiftly wielded its fierceness and caused a father to cower in fear. Never mind the dangers we willingly open children up to when we push LGBTQXYZ pseudoscience,” he wrote. 

Jacob used normal practices for posting the article to LifeSite’s business social media pages. 

Normally, Jacob would have used a social media scheduling platform that enables media organizations to more easily publish content on their social media pages—but on that particular afternoon, the platform was experiencing technical difficulties, which were later resolved.  

Undeterred, on August 1 Jacob manually posted Bomberger’s commentary through LifeSiteNews’ page, an action that required she first be logged into her personal account.

On September 3, as we reported previously, Facebook notified LifeSite that it had removed a LifeSite post linking the article because it “violated Community Standards,” specifically the platform’s definition of hate speech as any “direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics” including “gender identity.” 

“We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation,” Facebook declared. 

Bomberger’s piece, however, argues that it’s unhealthy to reinforce gender confusion in children, and warns that the broader “gender fluidity” push will “erase” society’s understanding of “actual womanhood.”

LifeSiteNews asked for a review of the action, but the article was not reinstated and the case was marked “closed,” with no path for recourse or further explanation offered.

Then, on September 10 — more than a month after publication of the article and a full week after the article had been removed — Jacob received a notice from Facebook informing her that she had been tossed into ‘Facebook jail,’ prevented from posting or commenting for 24 hours.  

A duplicate notice about the action against Jacob was simultaneously sent to LifeSiteNews’ Facebook page and explained that the content she had posted had indeed been deemed “hate speech.” There was no opportunity to click on the “See Details” button, as can be seen in the screenshot below.

LifeSiteNews reached out to a member of Facebook’s Public Policy Team, but no response was received by time of publication.


Gabbard comes out as only 2020 Dem to support third-trimester abortion limits

Despite a 100 percent pro-abortion voting, the Congresswoman believes 'there should be some restrictions.'
Featured Image
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Wikimedia Commons
Calvin Freiburger By Calvin Freiburger

Calvin Freiburger By Calvin Freiburger
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, one of the numerous Democrats currently running for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination, dissented slightly from the pro-abortion consensus over the weekend by expressing support for banning at least some abortions in the third trimester.

Gabbard sat down with libertarian commentator Dave Rubin for a wide-ranging interview released Sunday, during which he brought up the subject of abortion. She described her overall stance as a “more libertarian” belief in government’s role, that “government really shouldn’t be in that place of dictating to a woman the choice that she should make.” 

“I think that there should be some restrictions, though,” she added. When Rubin (who describes himself as “pro-choice” but growing more ambivalent on the issue) asked for a “cutoff point for that,” she answered, “I think the third trimester, unless a woman’s life or severe health consequences is at risk, then there shouldn’t be an abortion in the third trimester.”

Gabbard’s answer leaves significant wiggle room as to whether she would support a meaningful late-term abortion ban, given how current Supreme Court precedent defines how “health” is to be understood in the context of abortion.

“(M)edical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health,” the Court declared in Doe v. Bolton, the companion ruling to Roe v. Wade. “This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”

By contrast, pro-life laws such as the federal late-term abortion ban generally make exceptions for medical emergencies, but use more precise language such as a risk of “substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman” (Gabbard previously voted against the ban).

Even so, Gabbard’s answer stands out amid the rest of the Democrat field, all of whom are running on a platform of effectively unlimited abortion at tapxayer expense, and several of whom have announced plans to enshrine and expand Roe in federal law, effectively banning states from passing any significant pro-life laws.

Every contender currently in the U.S. Senate has voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would require abortionists to transfer infants who survive abortions to hospitals for basic medical care. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris have refused to say if abortion is ever wrong, and most recently former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke defended abortion up to the day before birth.

Gabbard has drawn some interest for ostensibly being more moderate than the rest of the Democrat field. As recently as 2004, she opposed same-sex “marriage,” but has since disavowed her old stance and is now largely in lockstep with the 2019 party, having established a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record, backing a variety of pro-LGBT bills, and even endorsing the decriminalization of prostitution.

National Review noted that Gabbard has not signed on as a co-sponsor of Democrat legislation to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which bas direct federal funding of most abortions, or the so-called Women’s Health Protection Act, which would explicitly forbid states from enacting a broad range of even modest abortion restrictions.

Yet Catholic News Agency pointed out that Gabbard has also failed to sign a discharge petition that would force a House vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Gabbard is currently in ninth place among the Democrat primary field, according to RealClearPolitics, with a polling average of 1.7 percent.


New York Times laments Planned Parenthood closing doors in wake of Trump funding cuts

Two Planned Parenthood clinics in the Cincinnati area will close this month.
Featured Image
Jill Stanek
Martin M. Barillas By Martin M. Barillas

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

CINCINNATI, September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) -- Planned Parenthood locations are closing down, thanks to the Trump administration’s changes to the nation’s Title X family planning program, the New York Times lamented in an editorial bylined by its editorial board.

According to the New York Times, the Trump administration had undermined the federal Title X “family planning program”, thus “making it harder for women’s health clinics to stay afloat and for patients to afford birth control and other services”. 

“Three weeks after Planned Parenthood was effectively forced out of the Title X program, the group has announced that two of its clinics in the Cincinnati area will close this month — a fate that Planned Parenthood officials say was accelerated by the administration’s changes to Title X. Those changes include barring clinics that perform or even refer patients for abortions from receiving federal family planning dollars unless they jump through a near-impossible series of hoops,” the New York Times stated in its Sept 9 article. 

According to Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio, the Springdale Health Center and Western Hills Health Center in West Price Hill serve more than 6,000 patients a year. They will close by September 20. According to, neither of the two locations commits abortions. Planned Parenthood blamed what it has described as a “gag rule”  that prevents funding recipients of Title X funding to recommend or advocate for abortion. 

Deciding that it will not comply with the new rules, Planned Parenthood will not accept Title X funding. According to media reports, it receives approximately $60 million in Title X funds per year. However, according to a Congressionally-mandated report by the Government Accounting Office, Planned Parenthood received over $1.5 billion in taxpayer funds from 2013 to 2015.

In 2016, Ohio lawmakers defunded Planned Parenthood from several programs through legislation that was upheld by a federal court this year. In Ohio, Planned Parenthood received about $600,000 in state funding in 2018. Planned Parenthood has long held that government funding does not pay for abortions, but pro-life advocates have pointed out that government funding offsets the organization’s operating costs and thus provides indirect support for abortion.

Planned Parenthood CEO Kersha Deibel of Southwest Ohio said that Republican politicians such as Senator Rob Portman and Governor Mike DeWine have long sought to curtail abortion.

"This is the world they want to see: one where women lose access to birth control, where information about how to access abortion is held hostage, and where, if you don’t have money, it’s almost impossible to access an STI test or a cancer screening."

Ironically, at a press conference outside of Sen. Portman’s office, Deibel said that Ohio is among the worst states in the union in terms of infant mortality. She vowed to continue to fight for abortion.

The New York Times noted that Planned Parenthood is seeking additional donations to cover any shortfall resulting from the loss of government funds. While crediting abortion facilities with “resourcefullness,” the newspaper fears that it is “only a matter of time before more facilities around the country” close their doors. 


Timeline of Planned Parenthood’s war against journalist who exposed illegal baby body-parts trade

It's been 4 years since David Daleiden released undercover footage showing the illegal trafficking of aborted-baby body-parts. The abortion industry is still trying to kill the messenger.
Featured Image
Lianne Laurence By Lianne Laurence

Lianne Laurence By Lianne Laurence
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

PETITION: Support pro-lifers who exposed Planned Parenthood's sale of baby body parts Sign the petition here.

SAN FRANCISCO, California, September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Since the 2015 release of undercover videos documenting Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking in body parts of aborted babies, the fury of the abortion industry and its Democratic allies has fallen on pro-life investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Susan Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP).

Tucker Carlson summed it this way when speaking to Daleiden on his Sept. 6 show: “You bring to light clearly illegal and appalling and immoral behavior by Planned Parenthood and then you become the target of a criminal investigation.” 

The groundbreaking undercover videos showed Planned Parenthood executives and workers haggling over the prices of baby body parts, picking through bloodied arms and legs of aborted babies in a pie tray, and discussing how to alter abortion methods to obtain better body parts for sale.

Public outrage over the videos prompted congressional hearings, a Senate committee recommendation for an FBI investigation, a Department of Justice investigation, and moves by the Trump administration to partially defund Planned Parenthood.

Key leaders from Planned Parenthood have resigned since and many of the abortionists who appeared in the CMP videos have left the abortion-providing giant, as Operation Rescue reported in February of this year.

Daleiden and Merritt now face 15 felony counts of illegal taping of confidential information under California’s anti-eavesdropping law. If convicted, they could be jailed for 10 years. 

Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) are both suing CMP.

Daleiden and Merritt’s criminal preliminary hearing before Judge Christopher Hite of the Superior Court of San Francisco County is set to enter its second week of testimony on Tuesday. Hite will decide if there is probable cause to continue to trial. He may drop some charges or reduce them to misdemeanours.  

LifeSiteNews has compiled a timeline of the events, by no means exhaustive, leading up to the preliminary hearing. Judge Hite ordered the names of Daleiden and Merritt’s 14 accusers in the criminal charges sealed during the prosecution, so they are referred to by their “Doe” designations.


  • July 14, 2015: Center for Medical Progress releases the first undercover video exposing Planned Parenthood’s selling of baby body parts; “Doe 9,” former director of medical services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America discusses over a lunch of wine and salad how to crush the baby to obtain intact organs, and says PP abortionists convert baby to breech (the illegal partial-birth abortion method) to obtain intact heads
  • July 21, 2015: CMP releases a second video in which Doe 10, then president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s for-profit Medical Directors’ Council, haggling over prices of fetal parts, quipping she “wants a Lamborghini.”
  • July 31, 2015:  The National Abortion Federation (NAF) sues CMP and obtains a federal order from Judge William H. Orrick III of the US District Court of Northern California, who has ties to Planned Parenthood, that bans publication of CMP undercover videos of the NAF conferences.
  • August 4, 2015: CMP releases 5th video, in which director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast Melissa Farrell says abortionists are willing to alter the abortion process to obtain the body parts researchers request, or to deliver a child essentially intact. It also includes graphic footage of investigators seeing pristine organs extracted from a 20-week-old aborted baby.
  • August 19, 2015: CMP releases 7th video of former StemExpress technician Holly O’Donnell who describes having to cut a baby’s face with scissors, and Dr. Ben Van Handel, the vice president of Novogenix Laboratories, saying: “there are times when, after the [abortion] procedure is done, that the heart is still beating.”
  • October 6, 2015: Judge Orrick rules CMP can release all undercover Planned Parenthood footage to Congress but must provide it to NAF as well.
  • October 22, 2015: releases 11 CMP videos blocked by a restraining order of NAF convention it obtained from a hacker, including footage of Dr. Lisa Harris telling colleagues "killing" is "the most important thing I could do with my life," and abortion facility owner Renee Chelian saying that ”burning aborted babies' bodies to generate electricity is "a great idea."
  • April 5, 2016: California Attorney General Kamala Harris ordered agents to enter Daleiden’s Orange County apartment and seize all the material he collected during the 30-month-long investigation he conducted on behalf of the Center for Medical Progress. Harris received $15,000 from five Planned Parenthood-affiliated PACS in 2014 for her re-election run as A-G, and ran on a platform to stop any efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in 2016 in her run for US Senate. She has received at least $254,370 from groups dedicated to “women's issues” and a $5,000 donation from EMILY's List to the Kamala Harris Victory Fund.
  • September 28, 2016: Former Los Angeles County district attorney Steve Cooley, one of Daleiden’s criminal defence lawyers, releases emails that show Planned Parenthood helped Harris draft a law specifically targeting CMP.
  • December 13, 2016: Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA, says he is referring several Planned Parenthood affiliates and companies involved in fetal tissue transfers, as well as the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, to the FBI and the Department of Justice for investigation and possible prosecution.
  • March 28, 2017: The state of California now led by Democrat California A-G Xavier Becerra charges Daleiden and Merritt with 14 felony counts of the illegal recording of confidential communications under Penal Code section 632, and one count of conspiracy to violate section 632 on behalf of 14 secret accusers identified as “Does.” The charges carry a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
  • March 29, 2017: CMP releases undercover video showing Dr. DeShawn Taylor, previous Medical Director of Planned Parenthood of Arizona and longtime abortion provider at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, graphically describing how to deliver aborted babies intact so that their body parts can be harvested.
  • May 25, 2017: CMP posts a video from a National Abortion Federation conference under gag order by Orrick which shows abortionists admitting what they do is “killing,” complaining about how “difficult” it is to tear apart a fetus, and lamenting that they’re not given a place to discuss the “heads that get stuck that we can’t get out.”
  • May 26, 2017: CMP removes the video the next day after Orrick threatens to hold them in contempt.
  • July 12, 2017: Orrick finds Cooley and his associate, former Los Angeles assistant district attorney Brentford Ferreira, who is also defending Daleiden, in contempt of court for releasing banned videos of National Abortion Federation conferences. 
  • July 19, 2017: Orrick finds David Daleiden and CMP in contempt for releasing banned videos of the NAF federation conferences, and levies a penalty reported at the time to be around $137,000; Cooley and Ferreira announce they will appeal.
  • August 31, 2017: Orrick releases ruling fining Daleiden, Cooley and Ferreira $195,000 for civil contempt of court.
  • December 10, 2017: Two tissue procurement companies exposed by CMP, DV Biologics LLC and sister company DaVinci Biosciences LLC, reach $7.78 million settlement with Orange County DA’s office and are order to cease all operations in California within 60 to 120 days.
  • August 16, 2018: CMP files motion to lift Orrick’s federal injunction banning publication of its undercover videos of the NAF convention and abortion trade show.
  • December 8, 2018: News breaks that U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Planned Parenthood for selling baby body parts, more than two years after the release of the CMP videos.
  • February 11, 2019: Judge Christopher C. Hite of the Superior Court of San Francisco County rules the names of the 14 “Does” listed as accusers in criminal charges against Daleiden and Merritt will remain sealed during the case. The names had been published by LifeSiteNews and have been publicly available on the internet since 2017.
  • April 19, 2019: California Supreme Court’s chief justice issued a stay in the criminal prosecution after Merritt’s lawyers, Horatio Mihet of Liberty Counsel and Nic Coscis, filed a permit for review and Daleiden’s lawyers, Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society and Brent Ferreira, followed suit.
  • May 20, 2019: California Supreme Court denies Daleiden’s and Merritt’s petition to drop criminal proceedings against them.
  • June 4, 2019: Liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tosses out Daleiden’s request to overturn the contempt charge against him by Orrick in 2017; he must pay $195,000 fine. 
  • August 23, 2019: CMP lawyers file a motion to have the Kamala Harris-ordered 2016 raid on Daleiden’s home and seizure of CMP’s videos disqualified. If the political search warrant is thrown out, the criminal charges will have to be dismissed for lack of probable cause.
  • September 3, 2019: Preliminary hearing on criminal charges begins.

Watch this special report where LifeSite Managing Editor Patrick Craine speaks with reporter Lianne Laurence who is on the ground in San Francisco covering the criminal case against pro-life investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt:


Infanticide is real and must be stopped, doctors tell Congress in born-alive hearing

'There is no such thing as a human being who is literally worth less than another,' a prominent neonatologist testified.
Featured Image
Jill Stanek testifies before House Minority Hearing on Infanticide, September 10, 2019. YouTube screenshot
Calvin Freiburger By Calvin Freiburger

Calvin Freiburger By Calvin Freiburger
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – House Republicans invited a panel of pro-life medical experts to Capitol Hill on Tuesday afternoon to shed light on the problem of infanticide in the United States while legislation guaranteeing care to abortion survivors stalls in Congress.

The hearing was established to examine the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act’s (BAASPA’s) “continued relevance to the debate regarding the protection of human life in the United States amid the Democrat Majority’s refusal to allow its consideration.” The bill would require abortionists to transfer infants who survive abortions to hospitals, where they would be given the same degree of care as any wanted newborn. The 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA) recognizes such babies as human beings with human rights, but doesn’t define how specifically to handle them.

Late in February, the U.S. Senate voted 53-44 in favor of the bill, falling short of the 60 votes necessary to overcome the current filibuster rules and pass. All but three Senate Democrats opposed the bill, including every senator currently running for president. House Democrats have repeatedly blocked the bill from receiving a vote, more than 80 times as of this week.

“We thank Whip Scalise, Rep. Wagner, and the Pro-life Caucus for leading the charge to protect babies who survive abortions in the face of extraordinary obstruction from Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats,” Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) president Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. “The overwhelming majority of Americans – including 70 percent of Democrats – want Congress to pass this lifesaving bill, and over 200 members of Congress have signed Whip Scalise’s discharge petition to hold a vote, but House Democratic Party leaders have spent seven months blocking it.”

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, noted that the hearing was being held in a crowded meeting room in the House Visitors Center, as Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied GOP requests to hold it in normal committee rooms that were not in use.

Dr. Robin Pierucci, a seasoned neonatologist and scholar with the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), used her testimony to elaborate on the medical standard of care that would be guaranteed to abortion survivors under BAASPA, a standard established for all other newborns by the American Academy of Pediatricians’ Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP). It “absolutely” applies to premature babies, she says, and has been used to successfully sustain babies born as early as 21 weeks and four days.

“Neither I nor the NICU team can always ‘fix’ or heal the newborn little ones who come to us, but there is no such thing as a human being who is literally worth less than another,” Pierucci said. “Even if there is a decision to not resuscitate due to severe prematurity or congenital abnormality, this is never equivalent to do not care or an excuse to abandon either the baby or the mother. Care is the minimum I owe to both of them. Whether the birth is premature or term, the people I meet are always worthy of this, without exception.”

Dr. Kathi Aultman, a retired OB/GYN and former abortionist who is also with CLI, addressed several common talking points against new infanticide legislation. She cited Julie Wilkinson, a former nurse for notorious late-term abortionist Warren Hern, who “told me that the vast majority of the abortions that they performed were done for convenience, not for fetal anomalies or maternal health problems,” as well as the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute’s own data showing that women’s reasons for seeking abortions past 20 weeks were largely the same as those who abort earlier.

Aultman testified that it was indeed possible for babies to survive a variety of abortion methods, and that “there have been many cases and multiple witnesses who have come forward and admitted that they saw babies either actively or passively killed after they survived an abortion.”

“In Florida, a woman who had laminaria placed in her cervix to dilate it returned for her procedure, but the doctor was late, and she delivered a live baby girl at 23 weeks,” she said. “A clinic owner with no medical experience sniped the cord and placed the still living baby and the placenta in a biohazard bag. The remains were found by police a week later after several calls from an informer.”

Aultman added during congressional questioning that BAASPA protects healthcare providers as well as babies by ensuring they aren’t put in a situation where they’re forced to stand by and watch a child needlessly die. She also blamed “regular media” for fueling the impression that infanticide is a myth by simply neglecting to report on examples of it.

Jill Stanek, a pro-life activist with SBA List who rose to prominence in 2001 after exposing infanticide at Christ Hospital in Illinois (her testimony led to BAIPA’s enactment a year later). She relayed her story for the hearing, and how it shed light on Virginia Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam’s infamous January comments about keeping babies “comfortable” until the family decided whether to let them die.

“One night, a nursing co-worker was transporting a baby who had been aborted because he had Down syndrome to our Soiled Utility Room to die – because that’s where survivors were taken,” she said. “I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone, so I rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about the size of my hand. He was too weak to move very much, expending all his energy attempting to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall.”

“From what I observed, it was not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer,” she continued. “One abortion survivor I was aware of lived for almost eight hours. Of 16 babies Christ Hospital aborted during the year 2000, four that I knew of were aborted alive. Each of those babies – two boys and two girls – lived between 1 1/2 and three hours.One baby was 28 weeks’ gestation – seven months old – and weighed two pounds, seven ounces.”

“How far will doctors go to comfort themselves for letting abortion survivors die?” Stanek asked. “Pretty far. Clearly, little abortion survivors desperately need Congress to pass the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, to provide them with legal medical protections and not leave open the decision whether they live or die.”

Tessa Longbons, a CLI research associate, painted a statistical picture of how large the problem really is. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data found 143 infant deaths from 2003 to 2014 that had been coded as induced abortion or spontaneous miscarriage, which “may be a considerable undercount” as just seven states (Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas) have provided data on at least 160 babies to survive abortions.

“However, still only two-thirds of the states have any laws to protect infants who survive abortions, and some states have been barred from establishing protections for these babies,” she noted.

To overcome Democrat leaders’ obstruction of the bill, House Republicans devised a plan they hope will eventually force a vote on the measure by collecting 218 signatures (a simple majority) for a discharge petition. Scalise announced that the petition only needed 15 more signatures, though all of them would need to come from Democrats as every GOP House member has already signed it.

Only five Democrats backed BAASPA when it was introduced in 2015, and the number of pro-life House Democrats has decreased since then.

“We are grateful to Representatives Steve Scalise and Ann Wagner for hosting the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act hearing today, and moreover bringing this important bill forward,” March for Life president Jeanne Mancini said in a statement. “This bill would simply require medical professionals to treat an infant who happened to have survived an abortion the same as any other newborn patient.

"The fact that the child in question is already born means that this really isn’t about the politics of abortion at all. It is about basic human dignity and compassion, which should be extended especially to the most vulnerable among us. It is unconscionable that Democrats have not allowed a vote on this bill requiring the most basic care.”

Readers can click here to read, sign, and share the LifeSiteNews petition urging the House to vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. At the time of this writing, the petition has amassed more than 21,000 signatures.


Testimony on babies born alive ‘irrelevant’ in Planned Parenthood suit against pro-life investigators

The judge who decided this sits on the board of a charity that houses a Planned Parenthood clinic.
Featured Image
David Daleiden Jim Hale / LifeSiteNews
Lianne Laurence By Lianne Laurence

Lianne Laurence By Lianne Laurence
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence
Sandra Merritt with Horatio Mihet of Liberty Counsel, her lead attorney Jim Hale / LifeSiteNews

PETITION: Support pro-lifers who exposed Planned Parenthood's sale of baby body parts Sign the petition here.

SAN FRANCISCO, California, September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — A federal judge said evidence babies are born alive in Planned Parenthood abortion facilities is not relevant in a Planned Parenthood racketeering lawsuit that seeks millions in damages from pro-life undercover investigators who exposed its trafficking in baby body parts.

In a pre-trial conference Monday, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick also set aside up to 21 days and laid the ground rules for the jury trial of the pro-life defendants that begins October 2.

Planned Parenthood is suing the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and five individuals in connection with CMP’s undercover operation that caught the abortion giant’s top level executives in covertly recorded videos violating state and federal laws prohibiting the sale of aborted baby tissues and organs for profit.

The defendants are David Daleiden, CMP project lead and one of its three founding board members; Sandra Merritt, CMP undercover journalist; CMP founding board members Albin Rhomberg and Troy Newman, who is also president of Operation Rescue; and CMP undercover journalist Geraldo Adrian Lopez, as Operation Rescue reported last month.

Biomax, the fictitious tissue procurement company used by CMP journalists, is also named in the suit.

Daleiden and Merritt are also charged with 15 felony counts of illegal taping of confidential information. 

Their criminal preliminary hearing began last week and is expected to run until at least September 13. If convicted, they face a maximum sentence of 10 years in jail.

As for the civil matter, Orrick dealt on Monday with procedural matters and motions, sparking argument from pro-life lawyers regarding proposed witnesses and evidence the judge disqualified.

He considered disputes over whether CMP’s undercover “videos exposed illegal conduct, or whether Planned Parenthood affiliates made a profit from selling fetal tissue, or whether there were any live births during abortion...not particularly relevant to these proceedings,” Orrick said.

The “motive” of the defendants in embarking on the undercover project “is not as important or not important at all, as far as what is actually done,” he said.

The issue to be decided by the jury is, “were the defendants allowed to do the things they actually did.”

Orrick therefore ruled out witnesses the defense proposed to call to testify about abortion practices in Planned Parenthood facilities. 

But Charles LiMandri, one of the lawyers defending Dalieden and the CMP, argued that this testimony was needed to establish that Daleiden and the Center for Medical Progress undercover investigators had a reasonable belief they were collecting evidence of violent crimes.

“There are important claims that need to be brought into focus,” LiMandri said, including the claim that four Planned Parenthood affiliates had a “profit motive” to ensure that babies were born alive because a “more mature fetus” had “more marketable body parts.”

“We believe there is evidence” babies are born alive in Planned Parenthood facilities because of the Stanford School of Medicine study that used Langendorff perfusion, which requires a beating heart, “only got the hearts from Planned Parenthood,” LiMandri said.

He also referred to a CMP undercover video in which Perrin Larton, procurement manager for Advanced Bioscience Resources, said there are instances where the mother will just put her feet in the stirrups and “the fetus will just fall out.”

LiMandri pointed out that Planned Parenthood receives massive amount of public funds annually and should be “under public scrutiny.”

Orrick said LiMandri was asking him to “be the first judge in the country” to interpret laws on the procurement of human fetal tissue, to which LiMandri responded: “Congress already did it,” adding that seeking a ruling on the “market in human fetal tissues” is not “asking the court to do that much.”

Watch this special report where LifeSite Managing Editor Patrick Craine speaks with reporter Lianne Laurence who is on the ground in San Francisco covering the criminal case against pro-life investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt:

In another exchange, Kate Short of Life Legal Defense Foundation, who is representing Rhomberg, objected to Planned Parenthood asking damages of $1.5 million in security costs because of a computer hack into its systems it claims was motivated by the undercover videos, telling Orrick Planned Parenthood had previously dropped this claim.

“The hack is back,” she said.

Orrick said he would revisit that issue at a second pre-trial conference September 23, and announced the dates of the jury trial were October 2 to 4, 8 to 11, 15 to 18, 21 to 23, October 31 to November 1, November 4 to 8, and 12 to 15 if necessary.

CMP’s lawyers have sought to have Orrick disqualified from the case because he served on the board of an organization that houses a Planned Parenthood clinic, but to no avail.


WATCH: Abortion industry admits sale of beating fetal hearts, other gruesome practices at Daleiden hearing

In this special report, LifeSite Managing Editor Patrick Craine speaks with reporter Lianne Laurence who is on the ground in San Francisco covering the criminal case against pro-life investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt.
Featured Image


PETITION: Support pro-lifers who exposed Planned Parenthood's sale of baby body parts Sign the petition here.

September 10,2019 (LifeSiteNews) - In this special report, LifeSite Managing Editor Patrick Craine speaks with reporter Lianne Laurence who is on the ground in San Francisco covering the criminal case against pro-life investigators David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Laurence, a lifelong pro-life advocate, explains truly the horrific and heartbreaking testimonies given by the abortion advocates taking the stand.

Video Transcript

Patrick Craine [00:00:06] Patrick Craine, Managing editor of LifeSiteNews bringing you a special report out of San Francisco where LifeSite has two reporters on the ground this week covering the criminal case against pro-life investigators. David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Daleiden and Merritt are both facing 15 felony charges brought by the attorney general of California after they exposed Planned Parenthood's sale of the body parts of aborted babies. The groundbreaking undercover videos, released in 2015, gave the world an inside view of the callousness and ghoulishness of the abortion industry. The videos prompted congressional investigations and have spurred state legislatures to pursue further restrictions on the abortion industry. But they also, naturally, provoked intense backlash from the abortion lobby including politicians and media. Now Daleiden and Merritt are facing significant jail time and fines for their heroic efforts. They're in the midst right now of a public preliminary hearing in the criminal trial brought against them by the state of California. Now LifeSite has our own Lianne Laurence in the courtroom this week in all of last week and she's being joined this week by our video editor Jim Hill. So to give you an inside track on the case we're going to talk to Lianne who's down right now in San Francisco's iconic Golden Gate Bridge. Hi Lianne. So you've been there all week and you'll be there for the rest of this week. Tell us what has been your your experience there what will what have you what have you seen happening in the courtroom. 

Lianne Laurence [00:01:34] Well I would say that Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society said it best when he was saying that you know the abortionists caught undercover with David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt in their sting operation exposing the sale of baby body parts were far more candid when they were talking to them not knowing that they were being recorded. When they get into the court they actually decide not to say anything, they're very evasive, they're dodging questions, they don't want to really admit anything openly but on the other hand the videos of the undercover videos that were taken by these reporters are shown in the court and the evidence is incontrovertible that they are doing really horrific and gruesome things in order to obtain organs baby organs for sale. 

[00:02:19] So the hearings, it's a preliminary hearing for the criminal charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. There are 15 charges. And it started on Tuesday with an abortionist known only as doe three testifying that she used digoxin in order to kill babies in the womb and how she loved her job and she boasted that she was a star in a documentary on late term abortion. So a lot of these testimonies are very, very chilling. And you just see that there's a really dark, dark world that David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt went into in order to obtain these very important exposé of what are illegal selling of baby body parts. 

Patrick Craine [00:03:06] Now Lianne what is at stake here for David and Sandra. 

Lianne Laurence [00:03:10] Well if they are convicted of these charges, this is preliminary hearings so the judge is going to decide if there's probable cause to continue to a criminal trial. If they are convicted they face ten years in prison for this. And it's very ironic because they're the ones who've exposed what is essentially illegal activities on behalf, on the part of the abortionists and the abortion industry to sell baby body parts which is a felony and also a number of other of questions arising. Did they perform the partial birth abortion which is also illegal? Did they have babies born alive which they are obliged to resuscitate under federal law? So it's ironic that David and Sandra are facing criminal charges when they're the ones who've exposed criminality on the part of the abortion industry. 

Patrick Craine [00:03:58] And the you know the judges instituted the publication ban right. Can you talk a bit about that and how that's protecting the abortionists in this case. 

Lianne Laurence [00:04:09] My understanding of the judge's order is that yes he's ordered the names of the 14 does who are accusing David and Sandra of eavesdropping on their conversations and of reporting or recording confidential information. Their names have been sealed. So in essence they don't really know who their accusers are. However a lot of the information is available online. And. You know people who really want to know who the does are can see that even what's going on in the court can be reported on. So if we're reporting that the for example the president of Stem Express CEO has admitted to supplying fetal heart tissue to Stanford University and where they're using a technique that requires a beating heart. People can realize that even though she's referred to in the court as doe 12 it's quite apparent who she is. Another case is doe 9 she was the one in the very first video which really shocked people because she was admitting over lunch that she would convert the baby's position to breach in order to obtain an intact calvarium or head and that Planned Parenthood abortionists do all sorts of things in order to obtain intact fetal organs which they then therefore sell. 

[00:05:34] So, in a certain sense the order is rather strange because we can't reveal the names and yet the judge doesn't want to restrain First Amendment rights and so anything that goes on in the hearings can be reported. So it's somewhat easy to cross reference who these actors are. On the other hand. They're accusing Daleiden David and Sandra of things which they could end up in jail for 10 years and so it doesn't seem exactly fair that their names aren't out there and that we're not permitted to actually publish their names. 

Patrick Craine [00:06:10] Yeah. Now, Lianne, you've reported on a couple a couple of key admissions in the trial one from one of the Planned Parenthood abortionists who you just referenced to who had admitted to babies being born alive during this procedure. I know you reported what a statement that in this procedure where they where they deliver the baby and then and then kill them in order to take the body parts that they have a 2 percent failure rate in basically killing these babies. What was what was the reaction to that in the courtroom? 

Lianne Laurence [00:06:45] Well. It's hard to say I mean in the court it's very very quiet. I would say that there are people who. It just reveals the callousness of the abortion industry. What struck me is that the abortionist when she was on the stand. You know she's very genteel. She's very proud of her work. She's she goes out of her way to sort of be cooperative with the questioning. And yet when it gets right down to it she's dodging every single question you know when she's pinned to sort of saying well could this conversation have been overheard,I don't understand the question. I'm not really sure. Are you asking me to speculate in that kind of thing? It's hard to see in the court itself what the reactions are because. It's kind of a, kind of a clinical environment in a way. I personally found one of the most shocking admissions to be one, when Peter Breen of the Thomas More society was asking doe 12, who is the president of Stem Express, about procuring heart tissue for Stanford University. And Peter Breen said the kind of technique that they use as the Langendorff technique which is or it's the Langendorff of perfusion and it requires a living heart. And it just seemed at that moment I couldn't believe what I was hearing and she didn't really want to admit that I mean he pressed her and pressed her and he finally had to do it through kind of a number of steps because he said well did they provide heart tissue to Stanford University.

[00:08:25] It's here on the study at Stanford University, the study says the tissue was provided by Stem Express but she really didn't want to admit it. But finally she said yes, yes. Because, she didn't want it minute she said because the researchers are being targeted. She was worried that researchers being targeted naturally the judge at that point said well I've ruled the question to be pertinent you know it's it's it's part, it has an objective to it. But he said you know answer the question if a can. And then she said well we do provide heart tissue to Stanford University School of Medicine. 

[00:09:04] Another one at yes. The part about the 2 percent failure rate. I mean this was the abortion or this was doe number three who did late term abortions for many years. And is that sort of celebrity abortionist. So she she insists that you know she uses the digoxin and she calls it didging. You know I didged babies so that I don't have to worry about having a life birth occur. But yeah there's two percent. And Doe number nine who also said when she was being pressed about babies being born alive, she said, well you know digoxin doesn't always work. So of course there's always the possibility that even if you think the baby is dead that you've killed the baby in utero the baby could be born alive. 

Patrick Craine [00:09:50] Interesting what you're saying with the clinical atmosphere of the courtroom because that's what came across you know when I read that quote in your story about how they have a 2 percent failure rate in this procedure that they use to kill the baby so that they don't the babies are born alive. It just it just struck me like there's a 2 percent failure rate in killing a baby. You know how much more clinical can you get in describing and describing this is just utterly ghoulish reality you know. 

Lianne Laurence [00:10:18] Oh yeah. No it's true it's not even just I guess it's not a clinical it's just extremely callous. I mean they're they just regard these they're not babies to them you know they're just they're essentially merchandise. 

[00:10:30] It's like OK well you know what are we gonna do with it. It's it's really chilling it's so chilling and it's so dark to hear these abortionists describe how they're going about pulling babies apart in order to preserve intact organs. You know I I don't know. How anyone can hear that and not be convicted that the abortion industry is such such a horrifying is such a horrifying thing and that you know. We really, really, really have to appreciate what David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt and the Center for Medical Progress have done here. What they have done has revealed the ugliest ugliest part of the abortion industry abortion itself is such a horrific crime. And then to actually take the organs of these tiny victims and sell them is is well really I mean it's. Let's face it it's diabolical, the whole thing it's really diabolical and we really have to appreciate I think what David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt have done. And now they're facing 10 years in jail for these very courageous undercover videos that they've produced. 

Patrick Craine [00:11:42] Now, Lianne, you know, you've been involved in the pro-life movement for decades.You're a veteran you know and even reporting reporting for us for many, many years on many of these things but what has been your personal experience of being in the courtroom. Your reactions to things seen this in light of your experience your past experience. 

Lianne Laurence [00:12:00] Well my personal reaction so far is that yes this is just so dark. And also there's such, there's such liars such liars. I don't know if I can say that you know because they are avoiding questions there are they don't want to know when they're pinned down in court. They they don't want to say what they've done I mean it certainly. Why wouldn't they accuse Daleiden David and Sandra of. Why wouldn't they accuse David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of you know recording their confidential information because of course they would want to keep it confidential. I mean it's just horrific what they're doing and I'm sure. And hopefully one day it will be proven to be illegal because they seem to simply, I don't know, I mean it's just hard to describe. How very gorrifying it is. 

Patrick Craine [00:13:00] Yeah. Absolutely. Lianne so there's three more days of hearings in the criminal case this week right. 

Lianne Laurence [00:13:12] Yes. There's the criminal hearing is expected to go for a Tuesday to Friday of this week. It might spill over into next week if the testimonies are taking a little bit longer than they expect. I think that the defense is going to be calling David Daleiden to the stand and I believe that they're going to have their own experts coming up this week. Last week we heard the prosecution's witnesses who were cross-examined by the defense lawyers. So that's going to carry on for four days at least. We also have today in San Francisco a preliminary hearing for a civil case. Not only are David and Sandra facing criminal charges. There's a civil case that Planned Parenthood has launched against the Center for Medical Progres which is bringing RICO charges against them. So that's a very serious matter as well. 

Patrick Craine [00:14:09] Well after this preliminary hearing in the criminal case where what would be the next the next step in the process. 

Lianne Laurence [00:14:17] As far as I understand it, the judge will then weigh the testimony and he'll decide if there's probable cause to go to a criminal trial. So he it's possible he may drop some of the charges he may reduce some of them to misdemeanors or he may leave them all intact. So we're just gonna have to wait and see how that's going to go. Now it's interesting to note that. The prosecution itself was initiated or the investigation into David and Sandra was initiated by Kamala Harris when she was the attorney general for California. And she's ordered agents to go into David's home and to seize a lot of his video equipment and that sort of thing and a lot of the materials. So there's been a lot of you know it's obvious that it's a very politically motivated prosecution. The attorney general the present attorney general has carried on with the prosecution despite efforts by David and Sandra's lawyers to have him drop it because of the obvious connection with Kamala Harris and the present attorney general with Planned Parenthood. May also mention that in connection with another lawsuit by the National Abortion Federation. There's been a federal injunction on a lot of the videos that David and Sandra collected at one of the National Abortion Federation conventions. So those have been under a ban. Now they've been allowed to be there allowing them to play them in court but they'll be sealed after that. So that's another thing. That they're fighting against is they cannot, they can't release all of the videos that they have and with a lot more of that damning information against the abortionists and the abortion industry. So and the judge in that case is William Orrick III and he's the one who's presiding over the Planned Parenthood civil case and he's also presiding over the National Abortion Foundation's civil case. And he has connections to Planned Parenthood and his wife has been on record as supporting Planned Parenthood. So that's another part of the kind of collusion with Planned Parenthood and the state actors who are prosecuting David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. 

Patrick Craine [00:16:45] Well good. Yeah well we'll be keeping keeping you and Jim in our prayers as you continue to cover the case as well as David and Sandra and their legal teams. 

[00:16:55] So thank you. Thank you so much. Thanks so much Patrick. Thank you. God bless you. OK. 


LGBT supporters verbally abuse Christians protesting Down syndrome drag show

They were called 'Jesus freaks' and told to 'f*** off'
Featured Image
Stephen Kokx By Stephen Kokx

Stephen Kokx By Stephen Kokx
Stephen Kokx Stephen Kokx Follow Stephen
By Stephen Kokx
From left to right: Tom Root, Trinka Jeffery, Ron Krommendyk, Nancy Krommendyk Stephen Kokx / LifeSiteNews
Stephen Nylen of Frontline Apologetics Stepen Kokx / LifeSiteNews

To see more photos of the protest, click here to visit LifeSite's Facebook photo album.

GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan, September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Dozens of Christians peacefully protesting a drag show in West Michigan exploiting persons with Down syndrome this past weekend were called “Jesus freaks” and told to “f*** off” by multiple pro-“LGBT” supporters while standing outside the venue that hosted the controversial performance. The nonviolent protestors were members of various Christian and Catholic churches in the area, which is one of the most religiously conservative parts of the state. 

Some of the protestors opted to remain silent but many, like Tom Root, a parent of a 34-year-old with Down syndrome, calmly defended Christian teachings on gender and sexuality when confronted by hostile proponents of the show. Root and others held signs that read “Love them, do not exploit them!” and “Stop the exploitation!” Topics like abortion came up during the heated exchanges as well. A heavy police presence was nearby.

The shocking “Drag Syndrome” performance was part of ArtPrize, an annual art competition founded in 2009 by Rick DeVos, the son of current U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. In 2011, a massive 13-foot tall, 425-pound stained-glass image of Christ hanging on a crucifix won first place. The event has taken a decidedly liberal turn in recent years, however.

Wealthy Street Theatre is located near Grand Rapids’ bohemian “Eastown” neighborhood and hosted a Saturday night performance at 7:00 p.m. and a 6:00 p.m. show on Sunday night. While free tickets for both shows were all reserved, only the Saturday night gathering saw the theatre fill its 400-seat capacity. Approximately 15 attendees were themselves dressed in “drag.” 

On Sunday night, local Fox affiliate WXMI-17 was filming outside the theatre. Protestors informed LifeSite that probably only “a couple hundred” people attended the 6:00 p.m. show and that when the Fox crew left, theatre staff took down the “sold out” signs that had been placed on the sidewalk, a move one protestor said was “clearly done on purpose to give the impression it was more of a success than it really was.”

Wealthy Street Theatre was not supposed to host the U.K.-based Down syndrome performers. A building known as “Tanglefoot,” a property owned by 31-year-old Peter Meijer, was where the troupe was originally scheduled to appear. But Meijer, who is running for Congress as a Republican, cancelled the performance after speaking with parents of children who have Down syndrome. Meijer expressed concern about “whether the individuals performing for Drag Syndrome are giving, or are in a position to give their full and informed consent.” 

The ACLU has filed a civil rights complaint with the State of Michigan against Meijer, who has said he won’t apologize for “doing what’s right.”

Roughly five attendees at the performance Saturday night brought their own Down syndrome children dressed in opposite-sex clothing. One woman whose son was wearing lipstick told a protestor his sign was “offensive,” to which the man responded, “I find this entire event offensive.” 

An emotional Nancy Krommendyk, a lifelong Grand Rapids resident, was on the verge of tears over what she was seeing. Her husband, Ron Krommendyk, told LifeSite the drag show was “manipulative” and that event organizers intentionally choose West Michigan because of its religious values. The pair run a Christian-themed ministry called “Freedom Counseling & Coaching.”

Inside the theatre, a “Content Warning” sign was taped to the wall so attendees were aware of what they were going to witness as they entered the seating area. It read, “PG-13 Rating - Adult Language: Please note that one of tonight’s songs does contain profanity.” A sign that said “All-Gender Bathroom” was also taped over the bathroom’s men and women entry signs. Alcoholic beverages were being sold at the concession stand and many of the city’s most well-known homosexual activists attended.

As the Saturday show began, the lights in the theatre dimmed and black lights were turned on. “Dice Santana,” one of the show’s emcees, strutted onto the stage as music started blaring. Earlier in the day, Santana, a young African-American, confronted the protesters and lectured them about how they weren’t being supportive of “love.” Santana proceeded to dance around and rip off his/her shirt, to which the raucous crowd let out an enormous roar. The show proceeded from there.

Men caked with makeup and wearing wigs and high heels did cartwheels on stage and ran up and down the aisles while lip-syncing various pop songs. In between performances, Santana would tell the raucous audience about how much “good” an event like this does for Grand Rapids, which has “come so far” in recent years.

Imitating a pastor, Santana mockingly invoked the name of Jesus Christ and asked the crowd, “can I get a yay-men!?” To which they shouted “yay-men!” Fewer than a dozen underage children were in the theatre for the Saturday night performance, which at times felt like a liturgical experience.

On both Saturday and Sunday night, interactions between protestors and supporters struck a similar tone, with protestors being accused of ableism and being judgmental. They were frequently asked if they knew someone with Down syndrome and how they could oppose the performers’ decision to “express themselves.” Almost every protestor at the event on both nights told LifeSite that they did have someone in their immediate or extended family with down syndrome. One protestor told LifeSite that they received multiple middle fingers from people passing by.

One young man supportive of the performance was so irate he walked in front of the protestors when they first arrived on Saturday at 5:30 p.m. and told them, “you disgust me!” When one protestor was about to respond to his remarks, the man shouted, “don’t even try to say something to me” before storming off to finish the cigarette he held in his hand. “Oh, I’m shaking,” he said to his friend as he walked away.

Some attendees at the event seemed to make it a point to mock the Christian faith of the protestors. One person who walked by the protestors called them “Jesus freaks” while one man who was later inside the theatre told Emma De Nooy, a pro-life, 16-year-old girl who was adopted from China and was protesting with her mom, that a miscarriage is “God’s version of an abortion.” De Nooy calmly disagreed with the man and later told LifeSite that the performers at the event are being “exploited” and that she “loves them, but just not what they are doing.”

A woman loitering around the entryway of the theatre shouted “Hail Satan!” on one occasion. She also danced in a vulgar manner while street preacher Stephen Nylen and others from Frontline Apologetics preached the Gospel on a small, elevated platform near the ticket line. Nylen called on those waiting to see the show to turn away from the path of destruction and accept Christ. Onlookers from across the heavily-trafficked street took an interest in Nylen and the protestors.

Tom Norton, a local politician running for Congress against Meijer, attended the Sunday night protest and engaged in a debate with a pro-LGBT person. The dozen or so protestors who showed up Sunday night prayed and thanked God together in a circle before leaving for the night. Norton was among them. A friendly young man named Jacob who had Down syndrome was also there with his parents.

LifeSite asked Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, for comment about the “Drag Syndrome” show. “As the older bother of a man with Downs, I suppose I should be shocked at the exploitation of mentally disabled people by pro-LGBT advocates in the name of ‘art.’” he said. “But why would a movement that pushes sexual and gender confusion on vulnerable, innocent toddlers stop at manipulating the vulnerable and innocent in the disabled community to advance a nefarious agenda?”

LaBarbera’s remarks captured the general feeling of how the Christians who showed up to protest the event felt overall. Protestor Bill Jaglowski, whose wife Denise is heavily involved in pro-life and pro-family activism in the area, echoed his comments. “It’s so obvious that the poor people at this event are being abused. I imagine that the event’s organizers and supporters would be in favor of aborting babies who have Down syndrome. It’s terrible what’s going on here. We need to continue to stand up for Christ the King!”


Climate change ‘core’ to European Central Bank’s mission, says new head

'My personal view is that any institution has to actually have climate change risk and protection of the environment at the core of their understanding of their mission.'
Featured Image
Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank. Bloomberg Markets and Finance /
By Peter Skurkiss

By Peter Skurkiss
Peter Skurkiss
By Peter Skurkiss

September 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — Cancer is an insidious disease. It typically starts with a single cell mutating into a cancerous one, which then multiplies many times over to form a tumor. If left untreated, a cancerous cell can break off from the tumor, enter the bloodstream, and form secondary tumors at distant sites. When this happens, the cancer is said to have metastasized, and more often than not, it's fatal.

The idea that man-made global warming is an imminent threat to the environment and that policies can be enacted to prevent the calamity from happening is a cancer of the mind. It has metastasized. The belief is everywhere — in the media, the public schools, universities, many religious dominations, and throughout the general culture. When it is spoken about in the rarefied air of "expert" opinion, the matter is seldom debated. Rather, it is taken as a given, much like the law of gravity. That's all the general public is allowed to see and hear.

The latest societal organ in which this cancer has metastasized is the European Central Bank (ECB), of which Frenchwoman Christine Lagarde has recently become the head. On August 4, Lagarde told the European Parliament: "My personal view is that any institution has to actually have climate change risk and protection of the environment at the core of their understanding of their mission."

Did you get that? Climate change has to be not a mere factor to perhaps consider, but part of the core mission of all institutions. Having such a sentiment is no doubt a major reason why French president Emmanuel Marcon insisted on having Lagarde lead the ECB. She is as fanatical as he is on the man-made global warming hypothesis.

It is interesting that Lagarde speaks this way at a time when the eurozone is economically stagnating; its countries are swimming in negative-yielding bonds; and Germany, its industrial powerhouse, is on the cusp of a recession that could drag much of the European Union down with it. 

Before the European Parliament, however, Lagarde did show some semblance of understanding her actual responsibility as a central banker. She said the ECB's primary mandate is price stability, but then she quickly added: "But it has to be embedded that climate change and environmental risk are critical missions."

What Lagarde is essentially committing to is trying to square a circle. She's attempting to bring economic growth back to Europe using, among other things, green policies. That will be some trick.

How can a central bank implement green policies? It's not that hard, given the entanglements the ECB has made throughout European life. It could start, as the New York Times' story mentioned, by "stop[ping the] buying of bonds in cement companies, auto manufacturers and other so-called polluting sources," as is presently being done. Instead, the ECB would purchase the bonds of green companies and non-profits. Yes, buy bonds from non-profit organizations. If that happens, watch the corruption flow. The takeaway of all this is that monetary responsibility will have to give way to the green agenda.

What does Europe expect to accomplish? No other major countries will join Europe in this folly — not China, Russia, the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Brazil, or even Turkey. If the bureaucrats in the European Union think their actions will spur others to similar action, they're sadly mistaken. 

In the United States, the Democrats are proposing things like the Green New Deal and other wacky climate schemes. The difference between here and Europe is that the ECB has the actual power to implement green policies, while the Democrat proposals are pipe dreams. But if it weren't for President Trump, America might not be far behind Europe in going over the cliff.

Europe — Western Europe, at least — seems to have a death wish. This is evidenced from policies on its defense, immigration, and economy. Knowledgeable observers attribute this to the two world wars in the 20th century. They're probably right. In the meantime, America will welcome with open arms European companies fleeing their own government's de-industrialization policies.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


Trump makes a hurricane prediction, and media go insane for two weeks

It seems that anything President Trump says or does can trigger the media into a state of stupidity or psychosis, or both.
Featured Image
President Trump delivers his inauguration speech at the U.S. Capitol.
By Brian C. Joondeph

By Brian C. Joondeph
Brian C. Joondeph

September 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — It seems that anything President Trump says or does can trigger the media into a state of stupidity or psychosis, or both. The Trump-hating media has been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder since November 2016, relapsing into insanity after each Trump tweet.

One of the latest triggers was Trump's tweet about the potential course of Hurricane Dorian. On September 1, Trump sent this out to his Twitter followers.

In addition to Florida - South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever. Already category 5. BE CAREFUL! GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

It's a typical Trump tweet with presidential well wishes ahead of a massive potential hurricane. It took only one word to send the media into a psychotic state. That word was "Alabama," one of several states that could have been affected by the hurricane.

CNN, blissfully unconcerned that Joe Biden often doesn't know where he is or whom he was vice president for, was outraged that Trump is "spreading false information during an emergency situation." This is even more of a national crisis to CNN than when the network's reporters learned that the president gets two scoops of ice cream.

The media were quick to point out that Trump was wrong about mentioning Alabama in his tweet, attributing it to "a fundamental misunderstanding of geography on the part of the President." This was a polite way of telling the president that he is a dope. Trump should just ignore it, right? That's the wise counsel of the NeverTrump nitwits, but disconnected from Donald Trump's punching back when wronged.

Trump has endured almost three years of nonstop negative media coverage during his presidency. From Russian collusion to his every tweet or utterance, media reporting has been well over 90 percent negative. When once again accused by the media of being a rube or ignoramus, he hit back, calling the criticism of his hurricane tweet "phony."

Not content to move on to the actual hurricane, CNN went into obsessive-compulsive mode, not letting go of the Alabama part of the story, believing it finally had the gotcha moment for invoking the 25th Amendment and sending Trump to the loony bin.

Was Trump right in his tweet? Did Alabama face a threat from the hurricane?

Here is the Dorian path map from August 30, clearly showing Alabama in the potential path of the hurricane. It wasn't ground zero, but certainly in the storm path and facing danger along with the other states in Trump's original tweet.

The map did not show the hurricane hitting North Carolina, which it did a week later. Trump also mentioned North Carolina in his tweet despite the above map showing otherwise. Why didn't the media jump all over that warning?

CNN conveniently forgot its video from August 28, where CNN itself told Alabama to "be on the lookout" for Hurricane Dorian. CNN went on to say:

There are many states that are under threat right now. At least 6. From the Carolinas right through Georgia coastline into Florida certainly, and then also even into the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.

I guess CNN also has "a fundamental misunderstanding of geography."

Hurricane maps are predictions based on computer models — educated guesses at best. Interestingly, the climate change doomsday scenarios constantly pushed by the Left are based on similar computer models.

Of what benefit is it to President Trump to mention Alabama in his tweet unless the information at the time showed that Alabama was one of the states in the hurricane's path? CNN makes it out to be some sinister plot on the part of the president. It was the best information available at the time, nothing more complicated than that. Yet the media couldn't give up, and the story is now in its second week.

Next were the accusations of "doctored" weather maps. Trump presented a NOAA map that apparently had an altered course, a magic marker line added showing Alabama within the storm's path. Pining for the days of Watergate, the media were quick to label this "Sharpie-gate," and they were giddy, believing they finally had the evidence to declare Trump insane, getting him impeached and removed from office. I'm sure Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are ready to hold congressional hearings over the weather maps that may or may not have been altered.

 screen grab.

CNN's Jim Acosta, in his never-ending quest for relevancy, asserted that Trump "Jumped the Sharpie." How clever. Abilio "Jim" Acosta jumped the shark when he became CNN's White House correspondent.

On September 2, the day after Trump's tweet, the National Hurricane Center still included a small portion of Alabama in its wind map. And why was this even a lingering story? Trump tweeted well wishes to states potentially in the hurricane's path. The media accused him of being an idiot, and Trump punched back as, he is prone to do.

Now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was dragged into the nonstory for defending Trump's statement that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama — which it did at one time based on early forecasts.

Why couldn't the media simply report on the hurricane, regardless of its eventual path? This is a fake news story created by the fake news media, looking to pick an unnecessary fight with the president. No wonder few Americans trust the media.

What was happening in Alabama during this time? Were Alabamans on the side of CNN or the president regarding the hurricane's path? Alabama was not reacting to the president's September 1 tweet. Instead, Alabamans saw the forecasts Trump saw two days earlier. On August 30, the Alabama National Guard tweeted the following.

#HurricaneDorian is projected to reach southern Alabama by the early part of the week. We are watching closely and #ready to act. Are you?

Were they part of "Sharpie-gate"? Is this a grand conspiracy between the Alabama National Guard and the unhinged orange man in the White House? Or were these prudent precautions a president and state governors took ahead of a Category 5 hurricane?

Trump knows history and how President George W. Bush was excoriated after Hurricane Katrina, accused of flying over the damage, not caring about the destruction, becoming an albatross on the remainder of his presidency.

It makes sense for any subsequent president to be involved and erring on the side of caution when commenting about an impending hurricane. And this was no ordinary hurricane, either. The Washington Post called it an "absolute monster."

Nothing Trump did could satisfy the media monster. On the one hand, CNN criticized Trump for playing golf over Labor Day weekend ahead of the hurricane, ignoring the pending calamity; then, on the other hand, he was accused of creating unnecessary fear by mentioning Alabama possibly being in the path of the hurricane.

Welcome to Trump's world, where everything he says and does is by default wrong in the eyes of the media. No wonder he calls the fake news media "the enemy of the people" and pushes back against their buffoonery.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D. is a Denver-based physician, freelance writer, and occasional radio talk show host whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, the Daily Caller, and other publications. Follow him on FacebookLinkedInTwitter, and QuodVerum.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


How China and the Middle East are hoodwinking America’s elites

Our elite view the elite of other nations as their fellow citizens, and they view their fellow Americans as their enemy.
Featured Image
Andrey_Popov /
By Don Herston

By Don Herston
Don Herston
By Don Herston

September 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — Every society has always been controlled by a small portion of the population. These leaders of society have been called by many names; today, they are often called the elite. In modern free societies like the United States, there is more economic mobility so that some of the elite are individuals who were born in poverty, but there is still an elite even in societies that are founded on equality. There is still a small portion of society who have much greater influence than everyone else.

Historically, the elite in every nation have aligned themselves with the common people in their own nation. In the past, the most wealthy and influential people were among the first to enlist in time of war. The elite in each nation aligned themselves with the common people in their own nation and against the elite in other nations.

Today, there is globalism. This is the "new world order." The elite of today believe that it is in their best interest and everybody's best interest if they can end nationalism and come together as one big global family. This coming together has not been a global coming together of all people; it has been a coming together of only the elite in many different nations, and they have been joined by a shrinking portion of the common people who are still under their influence.

The elite of the U.S. and Europe have aligned themselves not only with each other, but also with the elite of China and the Middle East. They have intertwined the world economy to such a degree that decoupling seems impossible. They are promoting open borders. Since they believe that humanity is becoming one big happy family, it makes sense that they have never noticed any potential problem with the move of manufacturing to China. They facilitated this move. The working people in the West have been devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs, and they are increasingly turning against the elite.

With globalism, the elite no longer see the elite of other nations as their enemy, but instead they see the common people of their own society as their enemy. The elite of many different nations are aligned against the working class of those same nations. The elite see themselves as morally superior, as they believe they are bringing about world unity and peace, and they see the common people of their own society as selfish simpletons for opposing them.

The elite don't seem to realize that globalism is almost exclusively a Western movement. The Chinese and the Muslims are not actually singing "kumbaya," but are only moving their lips.

China is like one big slave plantation, and the Chinese government has used its control over its own economy and the manipulation of the currency to take control of world industrial production. This has made China the world's greatest industrial and economic power, but it's an economic power with an enslaved working class who are able to consume only a portion of the goods they produce. The surplus Chinese production must be sold to the working class of America, who have been decimated by the loss of manufacturing jobs. This has created an unsustainable world economy.

We have transformed China from a Marxist totalitarian regime to a fascist totalitarian regime, and a fascist regime that is solidly nationalist. The U.S. should have stood up to China years ago. It's too late now. China controls industrial production, and the U.S. borrows a trillion dollars a year just to maintain a "post-industrial" economy where most people live from paycheck to paycheck. Yet our political and media elite still don't see any problem with opening our markets to China, just as they still think the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular organization that supports freedom and equality.

Our elite's alliance with the Chinese elite has been catastrophic, but it is their alliance with the elite of the Muslim world that defies common sense.

Our elite enthusiastically supported the Arab Spring, believing that it would bring about freedom and democracy in the Middle East as part of the global march to peace and unity. They believed this because this is what their friends in the Muslim world told them. The "Arab Spring" was actually an Islamist movement heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. It was a movement to overthrow secular dictators. There were some secular reformers trying to hijack the movement, but they never had a chance.

It is the Islamist elite of the Middle East who befriended our elite and convinced them to support the Arab Spring. The Islamist elite have convinced our elite that they must silence all critics of Islam. They have convinced them that this is way to stop terrorism, since criticism of Islam is used by the terrorists for recruitment. Mean-spirited criticism of Islam or Muslims can obviously be used by Islamic terrorists for recruitment, but the jihadists do not repeat legitimate criticism of Islam. They merely try to kill the person who says it.

Amazingly, the Islamists have also convinced our elite that we should shine a spotlight on all attacks on Muslims. When an inebriated passenger stabs a Muslim cab driver, or when a school official calls the police because a Muslim student brought a bomb to school, our elite are convinced that the way to respond is to put it on the front page, make it the lead story, shout it from the rooftop. Yet, clearly, events like these can be used by the terrorists for recruitment. This doesn't make sense until you realize that our elite will believe what they are told by their friends. Their friends, the Islamist elite, want to magnify attacks against Muslims in order to encourage Islamic terrorism, but they want to silence critics of Islam since legitimate criticism of Islam can weaken the faith, including the faith of the terrorists.

Our elite are convinced that attacks on Muslims like the one in Christchurch should receive a great deal of attention because an act of violence against Muslims could never be used for recruitment by Islamic terrorists, unlike legitimate criticism of Mohammed, which the terrorist would never repeat.

Our elite are being played because they view themselves as global citizens. They view the elite of other nations as their fellow citizens, and they view their fellow Americans as their enemy.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


Today’s ‘safe space’ college kids could use a lesson from World War II soldiers

How I wish our college students were being taught to prize selfless character and bravery as my dad was.
Featured Image
Statue of Gen. George Patton. quiggyt4 /
By Mark Deutschle

By Mark Deutschle
Mark Deutschle
By Mark Deutschle

September 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — I feel sorry for America's coddled college kids — the ones who have been bewitched by the leftist professors and popular culture into thinking a world without God, without conflict, and without free speech is the "safe place" world. The kids are taught that if we can just get rid of these terrible things, then somehow, someday, everything will turn out for the best. The kids are too young and too inexperienced to understand the implications of the drivel being fed to them, so they just drink deeply and absorb an unfounded and toxic worldview.

I cannot explain why so many smart professors in their 40s and 50s and 60s are so intent on feeding such toxicity into the lives of our college kids. Can they simply be unaware of how devastating their views are to our youths' desire to succeed and to their opportunity to create a fulfilling life where good choices are inspired by good character?

Recently, a writer complained about people wearing red hats that say MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Rebecca Makkai tweeted: "Also, for the love of God: The clever folks wearing 'Make America Read Again' or whatever caps — NO. You're making everyone scared. Don't do it."

Well, I have a "safe place" I'd like to describe for those on the Left who abhor conflict and find it hard to be in the presence of someone with a different worldview. What I am sharing here has certain minor details added to flesh out the story.

My dad, born in 1912, was a major in the U.S. Army during WWII. He was with the Army Corps of Engineers, and he led a team of soldiers responsible for building pontoon bridges for the Allied Forces retaking France after the Normandy invasion. The Germans had everything to gain if they could stop the pontoon bridges from being built and everything to lose if they could not.

On one occasion, Dad and his team began building a pontoon bridge across a small river located in the French countryside. When the bridge was about half-completed there was a furious eruption of enemy fire, and it was clear that the Germans were on the other side of the river with a deadly array of machine guns and mortars. My Dad instructed his men to take shelter in a "safe place," which was a small grove of trees located a stone's throw from where they had started building the pontoon bridge.

Suddenly, an Army Jeep roared into the glen where my Dad and his men were hunkered down. The Jeep was spinning wildly, and before it even stopped moving, General George Patton leapt out, screaming these words: "Who the hell is in charge here?" My dad stepped up, and Patton asked him why he and his team weren't out there building the bridge. Dad explained that they were waiting for additional support, as it would be safer to continue building once the German mortars and machine guns were chased away. Patton would hear none of it and demanded that the bridge-building be resumed immediately. My dad and his men complied, risking their lives.

Notice that General Patton chose to go to some of the most hotly contested front lines of WWII. As commander of the U.S. Third Army, he could have stayed far away from the bullets and mayhem, but he realized that choosing a "safe place" always brings consequences to those around us. He understood, as a man of immense character, that if he was going to demand personal heroism and bravery from his men, he would need to demonstrate it himself.

How I wish our college students were being taught to prize selfless character and bravery as my dad was. Without my dad and millions of G.I.s just like him, today we would be living in a totalitarian state, where wearing a hat with a certain political message could well be your ticket to years in prison. Yet, despite the enormous price America paid in WWII to remain free, the Left in America today is constantly trying to expand government control at the expense of personal freedom.

As Ms. Makkai shows with her aversion to even a red hat that is not safely located within her worldview, the Left demands total obeisance, where all must march together toward their chosen-for-you vision of utopia.

General Patton warned us that "if everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." To Ms. Makkai and the Left, if you ignore Patton's words and example, you risk becoming a powerless person subject to a totalitarian state, instead of just being an unwitting ally promoting it.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


California governor the latest leftist to try to destroy America from within

How deranged and thoroughly despicable are the California and national Left?
Featured Image
California governor Gavin Newsom celebrating homosexuality at a 'pride' parade. Sheila Fitzgerald /
By Patricia McCarthy

By Patricia McCarthy
Patricia McCarthy
By Patricia McCarthy

September 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — How deranged and thoroughly despicable are the California and national Left? How depraved is Governor Newsom? They and he are a collective blight on the nation. They are not alone in their immorality, in their contempt for civilized society. Democrats, who have long led their hostage cities and states to inevitable decline, are absolutely to blame for the destruction of their disintegrating realms. Candidate Barack Obama promised to "fundamentally transform America," and he succeeded in doing just that. He pushed the Democratic Party from what was a semblance of JFK liberalism to abject Alinskyite hate-America radicalism.

The Democrats now champion socialism, restrictions on free speech, post-term abortion, and the doxxing and blacklisting of those with opinions they find unacceptable. They support the abrogation of the Second Amendment. In their view, only criminals should and will have guns. And indeed, they will — like the man who killed seven people in Odessa, Texas, who failed the background check but still acquired a gun.

Of course he did. That is what criminals do: break laws for which they have no respect. Despite that essential truth, the Left wants to prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. The Left wants law-abiding citizens to be sitting ducks, defenseless against the likes of each and every one of the recent mass shooters.

The more people the maniacs kill, the better they think their goal of gun confiscation will be achieved. Any sentient person with common sense knows that this is exactly wrong. The Left believes that conservatives who support the Second Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, incapable of reason. They think they will soon fall for their gun control nonsense. They will not. Maine is now the safest state thanks to its "anyone can carry" law.

Governor Newsom of California has reached into the gutter for a new and obscene low. So dishonorable is this man that he signed into law a bill that "struck down a more than century-old law that required any able-bodied persons 18 years of age or older to assist a police officer who requested help during an arrest." San Francisco, Newsom's former mayoral gig, just named the NRA a terrorist organization. Next on their agenda will be to designate the U.S. military as a terrorist organization. That is how much the Left hates the country that has made leftists wealthy and comfortable and put them in positions of power to control the lives of others.

Newsom, and the rest of the Democrat governors and mayors who destroyed their own states and cities, have not only ruined the municipalities that they control, but destroyed countless lives — namely, of those who barely subsist on the streets of these cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Seattle, Baltimore, Chicago. (Chicago and Baltimore are the murder capitals of the nation. Both have among the strictest gun control laws in the nation.) They willingly promulgate the drug use of their homeless (they pass out free syringes) and seem to tolerate the vast homeless encampments and all they entail: discarded needles, public defecation, crime, disease — in short, the destruction of the cities they've been allowed to take over and ruin.

It is not an exaggeration to say that today's Left is a scourge upon this nation. No one who values civility and respect for our law enforcement men and women should cast a vote for any Democrat, anywhere. They pander, promise, and lie. They defend Antifa! And now they openly and officially oppose our law enforcement personnel.

Every Democrat presidential candidate opposes ICE, the agency tasked with stemming the tide of illegal immigration. All of them have implicitly admitted their contempt for our police and sanctioned violence against them. They clearly value illegal migrants over citizens. Newsom's bill is effectively an anti-police bill. It is difficult to imagine a moment in the past in which any citizen would not have rushed to the defense of a police officer in need of help. They were, and still are, our heroes, men and women who sign up to risk their lives to defend us.

The American Left is pushing to transform America into a fascist/communist country. Climate hysteria is just one avenue leftists have chosen to deceive us. Frighten the public, disarm the public, control the public. Is there an upside to this? Not in a million years. Ask the Jews of Germany in the 1930s–1940s, or in New York right now. Ask the citizens of Venezuela, Cuba, or Hong Kong. The Founders knew exactly why the Second Amendment is so vital to our liberty.

The American Left, for the moment its depravity exposed by Gavin Newsom, is a disgrace. These people are anti-American. This is now a discernible fact. The Left under President Obama weaponized our law enforcement institutions, including the FBI, DOJ, and IRS. Young people are now taught that law enforcement, every branch of it, and the men and women who risk their lives to protect us are the bad guys to be "milk-shaked" and mocked at every opportunity, and the criminals, illegal or not, are the good guys, always the victims. A San Francisco court just overturned the last charge against the man who killed Kate Steinle! 

The Left has turned our nation's civil structure and our legal system upside-down, and leftists are proud of themselves for doing it! And they are so deluded that they think they are virtue-signaling heroes when in fact they are enemies of Western civilization.

The oft-cited quote by Lincoln was prescient: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." The Left is working hard to do just that, destroy us from within. President Trump is the savior who has selflessly thrown himself upon the pyre of their fury to save the nation. No wonder they hate him so much.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


Jihad babies: Militant Islam trains its soldiers starting in the cradle

From very early on, the young child is indoctrinated.
Featured Image /
By Amil Imani

By Amil Imani
Amil Imani
By Amil Imani

September 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — It goes without saying that every child who arrives into this world is a helpless infant at the mercy of others, not only to be fed, cleaned, and protected, but also to be informed about the bewildering life we face. The parents, caretakers, and immediate family can teach the newborn only what they know and believe themselves, which was handed down to them by the adults who raised them.

The development of a newborn in any family is importantly influenced by many factors, among them how hands-on the parents are; how religious they are; and how they manage him in an attempt to make him not only a good person, but also a person better than they themselves are.

Islam, from its inception, discovered the crucial secret of getting to the young mind early by adhering to the dictum: instruction in early childhood is akin to carving in rock. In the same vein goes the Jesuit saying: "Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man." The immense importance of getting early to the young mind is also emphasized by non-religious doctrines as diverse as the Freudian psychoanalytic theory and Watsonian behavioral psychology.

It is thus that millions of infants annually end up in the care of people who themselves are imbued with a pathological Islamist belief system rooted in the mores and practices of the primitives of the Arabian Peninsula.

From very early on, the young child is indoctrinated in the belief that there is an omniscient, ever-vigilant Allah who observes everything a person does and even everything he contemplates. Nothing whatsoever escapes this omnipresent, all-knowing being. Allah keeps tabs and bestows incredibly desirable rewards if one behaves as told, while dispensing unimaginably tortuous punishment if one strays.

The very young Muslim begins with questions at every step, with fears and hopes entangled with the need to survive and thrive. He is curious to know who he is. What is this world all about? What is he supposed to do and how? Where is he headed? People die. Where do they go? And on and on. The information booths available to him in the fairground of life provide him with answers that may help relieve his innate existential anxiety. And it is here that the Islamic religion plays its critical role and holds great appeal. Muhammad's religion provides a surefire answer to those who are willing to take it on faith.

These are precisely the kind of people Western countries, including the United States have brought from the 7th century to 21st-century America and settled across the land without any consideration for the safety and security of the American people. What did they expect was going to happen once they rejected the West and declared jihad against all infidels? In no time at all, America, the greatest superpower on the planet, loses its own power from within to these future jihadists, and out of fear of the racist label, Americans look the other way and remain silent. 

Islam is a powerful magnet for the masses that are unable to deal with the uncertainties of life and death on their own. It is from this population, many already thoroughly indoctrinated from birth, that most die-hard jihadists emerge.

According to his religion, it is the bargain the jihadist makes. He surrenders totally to the religion of surrender in exchange for blanket security. Islam gives him all the answers he really seeks for dealing with this world and promises him a most lush and eternal paradise of Allah once he leaves it. It's a bargain that some buy in whole and some in part. Some refuse it and seek other means of dealing with their questions and their unrelenting existential anxiety.

It is foolish to underestimate the dangers of Islamic mental manipulation. All Muslims share an Islamic cognitive repertoire with considerable variations. As is the case with any population distribution, a great majority forms the middle while minorities populate the extremes. Islamic apologists and many Muslims point to the middle as true Islam, thereby disassociating themselves from the two extremes, and may even denounce those extremes as not being Muslims. 

At one extreme are the nominal Muslims. These Muslims adhere loosely to the Islamic precepts and practices that ordinarily pose little threat to non-Muslims, and they may even reject some aspects of the religion.

At the other extreme are the die-hard fanatical jihadists, who present severe threats not only to non-Muslims, but also to the so-called moderate Muslims (Muslims in name only) as well as the nominal Muslims.

To this extremist group, nothing is out of bounds in furthering its cause. Dissimulation, deception, and all manner of violence are their Quran-sanctioned tools. As part of their scheme, this malevolent group has adopted highly effective strategies for subjugating the West, its people, and its culture. In keeping with their supremacist racist cult, their god, Allah, is proclaimed as the greatest god — Allah-o-Akbar. Yet, in English, one hears only the deceptive translation, God is great, and not the actual Arabic, Allah is the greatest.

History documents the pivotal role of small groups, even individuals, in precipitating monumentally important events. It is the energized, dedicated militant minority that often sparks movements and directs the course of human events. And it is the minority of Muslims, militant and highly motivated soldiers of Allah, who are on the march to defeat the non-believing world and establish the Islamic caliphate.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


A week’s worth of mainstream media making clowns of themselves

As the Fake News denizens continue to earn their title, I'm certain there will be more material to write about next week.
Featured Image
President Trump at Values Voter Summit, 2016. Claire Chretien / LifeSite
By Taylor Day

By Taylor Day
Taylor Day
By Taylor Day

September 10, 2019 (American Thinker) —

Dave Chappelle hurts the Left's feelings

The entertainment sections of the liberal news were breathing into paper bags after the premier of famed comedian Dave Chappelle's newest Netflix special. Mr. Chappelle hit on everything in his stand-up routine, aptly named Sticks and Stones, from mass shootings and child molestation to the Jussie Smollett hoax and the LGBT community's thin skin.

Rotten Tomatoes, the site that calls its tools "the world's most trusted recommendation resources for quality entertainment," initially rated Chappelle's stand-up with its first-ever zero score, though it has since raised it to 17% and then finally to 30%. This was only after the audience continued to recommend it positively 99% of the time (over 17,000 reviews).

Why the discrepancy between critics and viewers? Well, Dave Chappelle's stand-up poked fun of all the things that the Left holds dear and believes cannot be mocked. News outlets like Newsweek and Vice tried their best to eviscerate the comedian's performance on the grounds that Rotten Tomatoes rated it so low, never mentioning that the audience ratings were so high. Vice even told people not to watch it for themselves in the headline "You Can Definitely Skip Dave Chappelle's New Netflix Special" and went on to call it misogynistic and transphobic, in typical Vice fashion.

The Alabama weather map

President Trump was accused by the liberal media of...attempting to minimize damages that Alabama may face as a result of being a gulf state during a hurricane. As Hurricane Dorian was headed for Florida, the president made precautions and disclosed some with the free press, including keeping emergency services reserved for Alabama.

The Left shot back, claiming that no weatherman ever predicted that scenario. When President Trump presented his own evidence, CNN boldly went on air calling the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's own report "doctored."

And then, because CNN has no concept of shame or irony, the news network then doctored its own picture (see screengrab below, circled in red). The Category 4 spin renamed an American state to prevent Alabama from appearing on a map about the hurricane. There is something terrifying about the fact that the president of the United States has to prepare potential victims of a natural disaster on Twitter because the Fake News refuses to, out of spite.

No, Trump did not congratulate Poland for Nazi invasion

A gross headline by The Washington Post reads, "Trump congratulates Poland as it commemorates Nazi invasion" and insinuates that the president is sending accolades to Poland for being outmuscled by the Nazis in the 1930s. The president was asked a few questions from the media about his canceling of the scheduled trip to Poland as Hurricane Dorian approached.

The Washington Post reports, "Asked if he had a message for that country, which was commemorating the anniversary of the start of World War II, Trump decided to ... congratulate it?" The article then quotes the president word for word so that those who understand even the most literal context could comprehend themselves that he was clearly congratulating the Poles not for being invaded, but rather for the strength and the building of their nation in the 80 years since.

Q: Mr. President, do you have a message for Poland on the 80th anniversary of the Second World War?

TRUMP: I do have a great message for Poland. And we have Mike Pence, our Vice President, is just about landing right now. And he is representing me. I look forward to being there soon. But I just want to congratulate Poland. It's a great country with great people. We also have many Polish people in our country; it could be 8 million. We love our Polish friends. And I will be there soon.

The story ran under WaPo's analysis section, proving that analysis has no meaning in the paper's newspeak room.

Leif Olsen's DOL resignation and rehire

Last week, a Bloomberg article made an assertion that a new hire at the Department of Labor made anti-Jewish remarks on his Facebook. The "Trump Labor aide," as he was referred to in the liberal propaganda, Leif Olsen, resigned just four hours after the article hit the web. However, before the week was done, Olsen was rehired by the DOL. After an investigation into these "controversial" Facebook posts, it was revealed that they were not anti-Semitic, as had been claimed; in fact, it was the opposite.

In an interview, Olsen stated about the comments: "It was sarcastic criticism of the alt-right's conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic positions." It would be safest to always assume that the Left will never understand a joke, especially one rooted in sarcasm, and has mastered how to twist innocent words into nefarious context.

Although the Bloomberg article was updated, it still asserts that Leif Olsen made an anti-Jewish remark on his Facebook at the top of the article. Only afterward did the writer issue a correction and then pat himself on the back for removing "anti-Semitic" from the headline. It now reads, "Trump Labor Aide Quits After Facebook Posts Surface" and links coverage of Olsen's rehire just four days later in a separate article.

As the Fake News denizens continue to earn their title, I'm certain there will be more material to write about next week.

Connect with Taylor Day on Facebook and Twitter!

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


The LGBT endgame is to destroy Christianity

For too long, many Americans have misunderstood the goals of the LGBT community, particularly its activist leaders.
Featured Image
By Fletch Daniels

By Fletch Daniels
Fletch Daniels
By Fletch Daniels

September 10, 2019 (American Thinker) — Quarterback Drew Brees came under brutal attack recently for having the audacity to appear in a video encouraging Christian students to bring Bibles to school.

The pretext for the attack was that he supported a project by Focus on the Family, a Christian organization that believes in the Bible, to include the biblical concept of marriage and sexuality.

Note that Brees did not say or do anything that could be even remotely construed as being anti-LGBT. In fact, he has previously appeared in anti-bullying ads supporting that community.

But his guilt was twofold: it is the guilt of association liberals love to use to attack what they hate and the even greater guilt of asking children to read the Bible, a book that many in this community despise. In his critics' view, arguing against bullying LGBT members is good, but so is actually bullying Christians.

CNN headlined that "Drew Brees says he doesn't support a conservative Christian organization after appearing in a video they made." That's what constitutes news at the apple is an apple network. They must have been really inspired to break into their endless and breathless coverage over a map of Alabama....or push the anti-Christian agenda.

For too long, many Americans have misunderstood the goals of the LGBT community, particularly its activist leaders. The majority of Americans thought this movement was about winning acceptance and tolerance of gay Americans, something few people found objectionable.

But that was never the goal. It was only an intermediary step. The goal was always about forcing Americans to celebrate and bow before the full and ever-expanding LGBT agenda while detaching America from its Judeo-Christian heritage and moral framework. The destruction of Christianity in society is the goal.

Note that liberals are always the aggressors on this issue. While many Christians do not want to be forced to celebrate what they believe to be sin, they are not attacking or discriminating against members of that community. Most Christians rarely think about this issue at all. But they also don't want to be forced to violate their own deeply held religious beliefs, which is where they become vulnerable for attack. Since they don't celebrate the LGBT agenda, they are the enemy.

The vile "Equality Act" Taylor Swift is tirelessly championing can be understood within this context. It is not about equality. That proposed law seeks to accomplish two goals: to insert sexual orientation and gender identity into the Civil Rights Act and to significantly expand the definition of public accommodations.

This is intended as a direct assault on Christianity and other people of faith. That expanded definition of public accommodation will almost certainly include Christian places of worship and Christian institutions. That's the desired target.

The evil implications are mind-boggling. Explicitly Christian institutions will be forced to service acts they find sinful or be driven out of business. Imagine Christian schools being forced to offer bathrooms of choice where everyone gets to decide his preferred sex. Imagine Christian teachers being forced to teach and accept dozens of "gender identifications" in their classrooms within a Christian school.

If you think religious people who have moral objections will be able to opt out, think again. The bill is written to ensure that that is not an option. The act states, "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ... shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application of enforcement of a covered title."

That part of the act gives the game up, revealing the true target. When and if this act goes into effect, an army of lawyers will immediately go into action to attack Bible-believing Christians. That's the whole point.

Before this passed the Democrat-controlled House, a number of Republican congressmen proposed amendments to both protect sanity and prevent the worst outrages. The four amendments included not forcing a health care provider to affirm the self-professed gender identity of a minor, not requiring a female to face competition from a male in any sporting event, protection of a parent's right to be involved in his minor child's medical care, and protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which the proposed new law nullifies. These were uniformly rejected by their Democrat colleagues, again providing proof of the true objective. Liberals view all of these potential outrages as positive developments.

The good news is that as long as Republicans hold the Senate and presidency, this outrage is a pipe dream. But if and when Democrats gain government control, it will be rushed into law.

The LGBT movement will not be happy until Christianity is completely driven from the public square and criminalized. This is why Christian bakers, photographers, florists, and business-owners are being sued under the most outrageous pretexts. These cases are almost always deliberately set up by extreme activists seeking a pretext to destroy what they hate. They often succeed.

The goal is to either beat the Christian business-owner in court or bankrupt him through the legal process. The burdensome and expensive process alone within the administrative state is often punishment enough to accomplish the goal. The Equality Act intends to take these vile state and local anti-Christian efforts and to codify them into federal law.

A common Christian mantra is to love the sinner but hate the sin. Many leftists take the opposite approach and fiercely hate people who don't believe as they do or serve the same master.

Incidentally, Islam also has strong teachings against all elements of the LGBT agenda, which is why homosexuality is criminalized in many Muslim-majority countries. But Islam is mostly left alone due to the temporary alliance between liberals and Islam in America, built largely around foolish intersectionality grievance hierarchies and blatant anti-Semitism.

The LGBT activists won't stop until Christian and Jewish religious leaders can no longer read certain scriptural passages in places of worship because to do so is considered criminal hate speech. Imagine the state forcing parents to embrace their young children's chosen "gender preference" or risk losing them.

These activists also will not stop until Christian-owned business, such as Chick-Fil-A, are driven into oblivion. This week, Chick-Fil-A opened its first restaurant in Canada and was met by hateful protest. The angry, hate-filled, and irony-challenged protesters declared that they would not allow hateful rhetoric into their community. Chick-Fil-A doesn't bring rhetoric at all, other than perhaps asking if a customer would like a refill on his iced tea, offered with a smile. That's quite the expression of hatred. They don't refuse service to people based upon religious belief or sexual orientation. But being owned and overseen by Christians is crime enough for liberals.

We've got to stand firm against the intolerance and hatred of the Left. In the liberal hive mind, Americans who don't celebrate and champion the worst of perversions are a declared enemies who must be destroyed. Right now, their aim is fixed squarely on Christianity. They are coming not just for Drew Brees, Focus on the Family, and Chick-Fil-A.

Fletch Daniels blogs at and can be found on Twitter at @fletchdaniels.

Published with permission from the American Thinker.


Drag queen blames little children for shocking photos at public library

The photos show the drag queen frolicking on the floor with young children crawling over him at a Drag Queen Story Hour.
Featured Image
Drag queen 'Carla Rossi.' Gia Goodrich
Doug Mainwaring By Doug Mainwaring

Doug Mainwaring By Doug Mainwaring
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

PORTLAND, Oregon, September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The drag queen who was shown in multiple disturbing photos to have frolicked on the floor with young children crawling over him at a Drag Queen Story Hour blames those children for the backlash he experienced.

LifeSiteNews first brought photo evidence of children having inappropriate contact with drag queen Carla Rossi at Portland, Oregon’s St. John’s Library to the attention of the public in July. The photos, which had been posted on the Multnomah County Library’s own Flickr account in October 2018, were quickly removed after the LifeSiteNews report went viral.

Drag queen Rossi, who last year said the kids were climbing on top of him after a dance move called a “death drop,” changed his tune after receiving criticism, saying the kids knocked him over as he tried to fight them off. He also blames his bad hip and the six-inch heels he was wearing at the time.

In an October 2018 Instagram posting in which he was pictured with a little girl lying on top of him, he said, “Drag Queen Storytime yesterday ended with a death drop on a bubble wrap dance floor as the babies crawled all over Carla Gulliver’s Travels–style, and I have the best job in the world.”

Shortly after LifeSiteNews drew attention to the troubling scene in the Portland library,  Rossi’s gleeful tune changed. In a subsequent Instagram post, he said he didn’t so much want to “set the record straight” as “break it altogether.” 

“The photographed kids knocked me over and piled on me, and I laughed with them and their parents and the library director and told them we had to get up as I tried to look out for my bad hip in the process,” said Rossi.

“What would you do differently if kids having a Cher dance party — on bubble wrap — knocked you over in six-inch heels and a floor length rainbow caftan?” he asked.



I’m going to be honest: I’m having a hard time. I can talk about resilience and perseverance and community responsibility as a public person — and I might try to be strong as steel, but no matter how much I want to be steel I’m just human, and right now that human is really sad and really hurt. Every time I’m tagged (please refrain from doing so) or make the mistake of searching my name I find thousands of conservative hate sites and commenters all calling me a child abuser if not something somehow worse. People who know nothing about me or my work or my achievements. Even when strangers on the Internet claim to reserve judgement for a “lifestyle” or don’t stoop to immediate “disgust” and homo/trans-phobia they still gossip and debate over what I thought was once an adorable photo of kids having fun being little monsters. I’m not here to set the record straight as much as break it altogether — if you need to know (as did my cousins who I saw on the Internet talking about me and drawing their own conclusions from these photos, which kind of signified my breaking point and hurt just as much if not more than the thousands of strangers already demonizing me), the photographed kids knocked me over and piled on me, and I laughed with them and their (also photographed) parents and the library director and told them we had to get up as I tried to look out for my bad hip in the process. What would you do differently if kids having a Cher dance party — on bubble wrap — knocked you over in six-inch heels and a floor length rainbow caftan? To speak simply, the re-presentation of this as “child abuse” and calling me a predator and a pedophile is rooted only in fear and homophobia. Now let’s be very honest: this outrage isn’t over “child abuse,” this is about the simple reality of queer people and children being in the same room, and at Drag Queen Storytimes across the country hateful cowards find ANYTHING (previous videos of drag numbers by the queens, images like these) to justify their hate speech without coming out as outright bigots up front... [CONTINUED IN COMMENTS]

A post shared by Anthony Hudson / Carla Rossi (@thecarlarossi) on


Yet the pictures of the kids with Rossi don’t seem to show the drag queen struggling to get the kids off him. On the contrary, each one looks as if the kids and Rossi were posing for the camera.

Drag queen slated to hold “Drag Workshop” for teens later this month

Despite the unwanted attention, Portland’s St. John’s library apparently intends to host another event by “Portland’s premier drag clown Carla Rossi” on Saturday, September 21.

Billed as a “Teen Drag Workshop,” an announcement on the Multnomah County Library website speaks of “the vast abyss of drag and its potential” and “the unchartable spectrum of genders and sexuality.”

The event also promises to recount drag’s “legendary elders, artists, and ancestors, from Two-Spirits (and other-gender shamans of the pre-settler North American continent) and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to Marsha P. Johnson, Leigh Bowery, Elvira, RuPaul, and Christeene.”

Drag queen “Carla Rossi” scheduled to make another appearance at  St. John’s Library
Screenshot: Multnomah County Library.

(Note: The photos of the kids on the floor with drag queen Rossi can be found here. WARNING: Link leads to images of child abuse.)


What happens when conservatives support drag queens on ‘free speech’ grounds

Far too many of our own side’s legal analysts are a product of post-constitutional legal academia instead of the Constitution itself.
Featured Image
National Review contributor David French. Wikimedia Commons
Calvin Freiburger By Calvin Freiburger

Calvin Freiburger By Calvin Freiburger
Calvin Freiburger Calvin Freiburger Follow Calvin
By Calvin Freiburger

September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The latest development in one town’s fight against public libraries sponsoring garishly cross-dressing men reading sexually subversive books to kids shows how incredibly important the debate swirling around this new and disturbing concept is.

On one level, a months-long argument among people who identify with a New York Post editor versus a National Review writer on “dueling visions for how cultural conservatives should respond to the post-liberal left” is about as inside-baseball as it gets, and I imagine that by now it tends to make a few eyes in the audience glaze over.

To recap, the debate started in May, when the Post’s Sohrab Ahmari identified N.R.’s David French as emblematic of a certain breed of conservative wholly unsuited to meaningfully resist leftist indoctrination projects such as Drag Queen Story Time, a thoroughly sickening movement to feed gender fluidity to children in public libraries. French’s response has been to dismiss it as no big deal and an exercise of free speech we can’t do anything about.

Last Thursday, the Institute for Human Ecology at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., hosted a debate between Ahmari and French during which French doubled down on his position that banning Drag Queen Story Time would “usurp the Constitution.” Here’s how he summarized it Monday at N.R.

I don’t like drag queen reading hours, but I also want to preserve for all Americans the First Amendment-protected right of viewpoint-neutral access to public facilities when those facilities are opened up for public use. I don’t want the government dispensing access on the basis of its preferred messages or its preferred speakers. Handle bad speech with better speech. Counter bad speakers in the marketplace of ideas, not through the heavy hand of government censorship.

For a glimpse at how this legal theory works in practice, we turn to Leander, Texas, where the Daily Signal reported that the city council has voted 5-2 to stop Drag Queen Story deciding that nobody can rent out public library meeting rooms anymore:

“We brought in $1,800 in rental fees and we spent $20,000 in security,” Leander Mayor Troy Hill said, apparently referring to the drag queen event. “That’s not good math to me” (...) 

“I hate that we’re having to do this, to take it away,” (councilman Jason) Shaw said of the vote to stop renting out space. 

“But people are going to attack. If we don’t just make it even across the board, people are going to attack and they’re going to probe,” he said. “It’s going to cost the city and eventually somebody’s going to get hurt. Things are going to escalate and somebody’s going to get hurt.”

Bible study, book clubs, historical or artistic presentations, informational meetings about local politics or community’ll all have to go, just because local leaders determined that it would be too much trouble to simply decide that connecting kids with drag queens is an inappropriate use of public resources.

French would have us believe that communities are powerless to judge the educational value of what their educational institutions are used for, or even to set commonsense boundaries on the basis of age-appropriateness. Does any of this sound like a remotely rational inference from “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech”? Can anyone honestly imagine any of the Founding Fathers nodding along?

Tellingly, French claims that excluding Drag Queen Story Time from public libraries would upend a “present regime that broadly protects viewpoint neutrality in access to public facilities” based on “decades of litigation”...not a regime rooted in the First Amendment’s original understanding or intent. 

That’s another of the Right’s most overlooked problems: far too many of our own side’s legal analysts are a product of post-constitutional legal academia almost as much as they are of center-right philosophy, resulting in far too many foolish positions based on judicial precedent rather than the Constitution itself, and too little concern for working to actually restore the Constitution.

Hadley Arkes, eminent Amherst College political scientist and architect of the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, explained at The American Mind just how French’s acceptance of dubious precedent leads him astray — the precedent in this case being the Supreme Court’s 1982 Widmar v. Vincent ruling, which Arkes argues reached the right outcome for the wrong reasons:

By the time Widmar had come along, the Court had remade its doctrine on the regulation of speech by backing into a stylish version of moral relativism. The signature line came from Justice John Harlan in Cohen v. California (1971): “One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” Harlan’s novelty here was that he rediscovered the teachings of “logical positivism” that were all the rage when he was an undergraduate, though they had been long abandoned by then in the schools of philosophy. But Harlan argued now on positivist grounds that political speech, on matters of right and wrong, was often heated speech and largely emotive in nature, without any cognitive content. Harlan insisted that there was no principled ground for recognizing a class of obscene or assaulting speech, and no grounds of truth in testing political speech. 

When the Court brought that teaching to bear on the problem of Evangelicals at the University of Missouri, it produced this ironic outcome: The Court would sustain a right on the part of the religious to have access to the rooms at a public university, but not because there was anything especially legitimate or salutary about religion in the life of a republic. Rather, the Christians couldn’t be ruled out because it was not legitimate any longer to make discriminations based on the “content” of the speech. The Christians couldn’t be barred for the same reason that the University could no longer rule out Leninists, Nazis, or Satanists[.] ...

French said that he would like to see the drag queen come into a relation with Jesus, but as I noted, he was determined not “to usurp the Constitution to do this. The price of wiping out Drag Queen Story Hour is too high.” The Constitution he was invoking was the Constitution reshaped in 1971 by Justice Harlan and his colleagues to absorb this liberating novelty of moral relativism.

Nobody is calling for the cops to raid Drag Queen Story Times on private property, and nobody denies that this fight is primarily a cultural one. Of course, the bulk of the work will be countering “bad speech with better speech.” But appearing on a library’s event schedule gives something much greater weight than it would have in some random newspaper ad, because it suggests that its educational value has been vetted and endorsed by the community’s educational authorities.

The First Amendment didn’t cause this situation, and it doesn’t stand in the way of correcting it. Free speech doesn’t mean public institutions have to give radicals easy access to kids, and the cultural debate David French claims is our sole recourse will always be weighed against us as long as government presses its hand on one of the scales.


German cardinal: John Paul II already decided against female priests in ‘binding manner’

'The question about the priesthood of women is not a question which lies in our power of disposition,' Cardinal Rainer Woelki said.
Featured Image
Cardinal Rainer Woelki
Maike Hickson By Maike Hickson

Maike Hickson By Maike Hickson
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

Register for the free Historic Amazon Synod Roundtable live stream  Click here.

September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – German Cardinal Rainer Woelki, the archbishop of Cologne, stated in a homily in honor of the nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary that the “priesthood has not been invented by man, but goes back to the mandate of Our Lord.” 

“If we take this seriously, it becomes clear that therefore the question about the priesthood of women is not a question which lies in our power of disposition,” he said in a September 8 homily. 

“Pope John Paul II has decided upon this question in a binding manner and for the entire Church already in 1994,” Cardinal Woelki continued, “and Pope Francis has repeatedly re-enforced this decision of his predecessor.” 

In his 1994 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, John Paul II stated that the Church has "no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women."

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Cardinal Woelki said in his homily that “the look upon the Mother of God” shows us “what really matters in the life of the Church, and not that, which a secularized society presents to us, so that we, as Christians, receive their understanding and acceptance.” It’s more important, the prelates continued, to look at “what God already has made out of us: He has turned us into redeemed persons, into His daughters and sons.”

That is why, according to Cardinal Woelki, it is important that “we, like Mary, open ourselves up to God's Grace and for the working of His Spirit.” The Holy Spirit, he continued, “wants to work in us just as He at the time worked in Mary.”

The working of the Holy Spirit is to first “draw us into Jesus Christ by making us members of His Body, which is the Church. He makes us partakers of God's Life, thus binding us most intimately to God, so much so that the Father and the Son come to us and dwell in us.”

This, however, is only the start of the working of the Holy Spirit, explained Cardinal Woelki. Because in a second step, “He opens the doors and sends us out into the world,” as it is also written in Pope Francis' letter to the German Catholics, in which the Pope “makes it clear that we should first and foremost work unto a new evangelization.”

While the Church may not be a “closed shop,” she may not “follow everything that the world would like her to do,” Cardinal Woelki added. “We have to become like Christ, His Will, and His Person, and we have to remain there.” “Otherwise,” said Woelki in his homily, “we lose our identity as Christians, and with it, as Church.”

“A Church,” he continued, “who adapts to the beliefs of the world is not the work of the Holy Spirit, but the work of our human mind.” 

In the midst of the current challenges, Cardinal Woelki called upon the faithful to turn to Our Lady “and to ask her as the help in dire times. She is the original image of our Church and, with it, a model.” She held her heart open to God when she gave her “I am the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to your word.” (Luke 1:38)

“Let us, therefore,” the German prelate concluded, “present to God our open heart so that He may fill us with His Spirit and so that Christ may take form in us. Then we will fulfill our mission in and for the world and give her that which she needs most: 'Christ, who stands above everything as God, may be praised in all eternity.'” (Romans 9:5)

Cardinal Woelki spoke these words at a time when intense debates are taking place in Germany about the possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood.

On Monday, the German bishops' news website published a report according to which several Catholic children and youth organizations from Italy, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have called for the female priesthood. According to the view of these young people, women are being set aside in the Catholic Church, and therefore they state that “the Church may not stand in the way of the vocation of women to the priesthood by denying them the Sacrament of Holy Orders.” 

Cardinal Woelki, who recently visited the United States, warned in an interview about the dangers of the Catholic Church in Germany turning into a “German national church” and entering into a schism. 

The comments by Woelki also come at a time where, in light of the upcoming Amazon Synod, different theologians connected with the organization REPAM (which is tasked by Pope Francis to prepare this synod) are proposing the idea of ordaining female deacons and even female priests.


Cardinal Marx to attend Amazon Synod in October, says he can ‘picture’ it approving married priests

The German Bishops' Conference, which has heavily financed the Amazon Synod, is also considering married priests.
Featured Image
Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of Munich
Maike Hickson By Maike Hickson

Maike Hickson By Maike Hickson
Maike Hickson Maike Hickson Follow Maike
By Maike Hickson

Register for the free Historic Amazon Synod Roundtable live stream  Click here.

September 10, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Reinhard Marx, the President of the German Bishops' Conference, has given a new interview in which he shows himself for the first time to be more openly in favor of married priests in light of the upcoming Amazon Synod. This interview comes together with the news that Pope Francis appointed him to participate in the October 6-27 Pan-Amazon Synod.

LifeSiteNews was able to confirm with the press speaker of the German bishops, Matthias Kopp, that this piece of news is correct. However, Kopp could not give an explanation why Marx was chosen, since he does not stem from the Amazon region.

So far, the Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops has said that mostly bishops from the Amazon region will participate at the Amazon Synod, together with some representatives of the Roman Curia. As the Rome Correspondent Edward Pentin reported in June 2019, the Amazon Synod “will comprise all the bishops from the vast region that encompasses Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, French Guyana, Guyana and Surinam, along with experts, heads of relevant Curial departments and several papal appointees.” 

Cardinal Marx told the national newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung that he could “well picture that one can come to the conclusion that it is good to admit married priests in certain regions, under certain conditions.” 

Priestly celibacy is going to be discussed in Germany, as well, concurrently with the Amazon Synod in Rome. The German bishops decided in March 2019 to start a “binding synodal path” that was to question priestly celibacy, the Church’s teaching on sexuality, and the role of women.

“It is not about celibacy alone,” Marx said in the new interview, “but about the future of the priestly form of living.” For him, it is important to see “whether and how celibacy is being lived in such a manner a positive sign and that it does not damage priests in their lives.”

He spoke these words also in light of the grave clerical sex abuse crisis in Germany, after in September 2018 a national Church-funded report uncovered large numbers of sex abuse cases. 

Critics of the German synodal path, such as Cardinal Gerhard Müller and Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer, fear that the discussions in Germany will lead onto a “path of destruction,” or, in Cardinal Rainer Woelki's words, into “schism.” Another German bishop, Zdarsa, even called this synodal path a “label fraud.” He insisted that he had not voted in favor of this new project in Germany.

Archbishop Georg Gänswein, the private secretary of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and Prefect of the Papal Household, told an audience in April 2019 that “he who wishes to invent a new Church and who wants to tinker with the so-called DNA [of the Church], is on the wrong track and abuses his spiritual authority.” 

Cardinal Marx’s new words in support of the married priesthood come to some observers as a surprise, since, only two years ago, this prelate purportedly was very concerned about tinkering with priestly celibacy. At a press conference of the German bishops in March 2017, Cardinal Marx said about the idea of laxening obligatory celibacy: “I have always been skeptical, I always said, one cannot treat this form of living in a playful manner; this is a grave incision and lesion.” In Marx’s eyes, the “history and spirituality of the Church” were at stake. 

He also raised the question about the possible effects of such a reform on the currently celibate seminarians and priests in his diocese, to whom this debate might be “a devastating signal.” This debate should not, according to Marx, bring about a “relativization of this form of living.” The cardinal concluded these remarks with the words that the Universal Church has to decide about these matters and that “I do not see in the Church a development of the will to change this [priestly celibacy].” 

It remains to be seen what will be decided at the upcoming Amazon Synod with regard to the married priesthood. But the fact that Cardinal Marx's support for this idea is getting more expressive might give us some hints here, especially in light of the fact that the German Bishops' Conference has heavily financed the preparations for this synod.


This prayer before Communion might strengthen belief in the Real Presence

Sometimes the change we want to see has to start from the bottom up rather than be imposed from the top down.
Featured Image
Cardinal Raymond Burke distributes Holy Communion at a traditional Latin Mass in Rome after a LifeSiteNews and Voice of the Family conference (October 2018). Voice of the Family / Flickr
Peter Kwasniewski By Peter Kwasniewski

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

September 9, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — An Eastern Orthodox cleric wrote to me recently and said:

The recent poll showing the loss of faith [in the Real Presence] by many in the Church of Rome is quite disturbing. May I suggest that the prayer before communion used in both the Orthodox Eastern and Orthodox Western Liturgies be adopted for the Latin West?

He was referring to the following prayer:

O Lord, I firmly believe and profess
that you are truly the Christ,
the Son of the living God,
who came into the world to save sinners,
of whom I am the first.

Accept me as a partaker of your mystical supper,
O Son of God,
for I will not reveal the mysteries to your enemies,
nor will I give you a kiss as did Judas,
but like the thief, I confess to you:

Remember me, O Lord, when you shall come into Your kingdom.
Remember me, O Master, when you shall come into Your kingdom.
Remember me, O Holy One, when you shall come into your kingdom.

May the partaking of your Holy Mysteries, O Lord,
be not for my judgment or condemnation,
but for the healing of soul and body.

O God, be merciful to me, a sinner.

God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me.

O Lord, forgive me, for I have sinned without number.

In some places, the following portion is also added:

I believe also, that this which I am about to receive
is truly your most pure Body and life-giving Blood;
Wherefore, I pray, have mercy on me
and forgive my transgressions,
both voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed,
committed in knowledge or in ignorance;

And grant that I may partake of your Holy Mysteries without condemnation
for the forgiveness of all my sins and for life everlasting.

My family and I first became familiar with the longer of the two prayers above during our time in Austria, from 1998 to 2006, when we frequently attended Byzantine Divine Liturgy. (This experience was not only good and beautiful in itself, but turned out to be of immense importance to my understanding of and writings on the liturgy, as, for example, may be seen here.)

Saying this prayer several times a week made it easy for all of us to memorize, and we found ourselves almost spontaneously using it privately at Roman Rite Masses as well, at about the moment when the priest was receiving communion himself, or as we were walking up to receive. It was easier to pray it during the traditional Latin Mass because there’s quite a bit more time available for prayer between the priest’s reception of communion and the faithful’s.

As ideal as it might be, in some ways, to have this wonderful prayer inserted into the Roman Rite immediately after the “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…,” it would be an example of the mixing of Eastern and Western elements, the pseudo-Byzantophilia, that was already so great a problem in the liturgical reform and has continued to generate strange hybrids in Europe and elsewhere. A better proposal would be simply to recite this prayer as part of one’s personal preparation, which is, after all, personal and need not be confined to any one style or form of prayer.

In an article at OnePeterFive in 2014, I recommended that parents teach this very prayer to their children as part of home catechesis:

We found that praying it in the quiet space before communion at the Tridentine Mass, or even doing so while walking up for communion at an Ordinary Form Mass, had a unique ability to focus our attention on the Lord. When the children were much smaller, my wife or I would lean over and say the prayer very quietly together with our children at the appropriate time. Later, all that was necessary was a reminder, and they could pray it themselves. In addition or alternatively, one could print it on a little card and keep it in a missal or prayerbook.

Some changes in the Church can come only from the top down. For example, retiring the gargantuan revised lectionary and re-establishing the superior ancient one-year lectionary will need to be done by a future pope; it is not something your parish priest can do. Making the eastward (ad orientem) stance for worship obligatory or reintroducing more kisses of the altar and genuflections — examples of traditional practices that strongly emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass and the Real Presence of Christ on the altar — is, again, something that must come from the hierarchy.

But sometimes the change we want to see has to start from the bottom up rather than be imposed from the top down. Parents, lower clergy, religious brothers and sisters, and teachers at all levels are free, at this moment, to instill right concepts and habits of prayer that form the foundations of orthodox faith in transubstantiation, in the sublime mystery that Our Lord is really, truly, substantially present in our midst at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. There are readily actionable ways that the sacredness of the Mass can become more sensible: the use, for example, of sacred music and silence. Above all, the old rite of Mass can be reintroduced priest by priest, altar by altar, church by church — the rite that was slowly formed over the centuries as a pearl formed around the grain of the Real Presence.

In these ways, we do not have to wait for the pope or a council or an assembly of bishops to tell us how to fix the problem of the lack of Eucharistic faith in the Church. We can begin to do it ourselves, prompted by the Holy Spirit through whom the Word became flesh and through whom He extends this mystery into the heart of every Mass.

Podcast Image


Pope Francis is harming same-sex attracted Catholics

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

Pope Francis is causing confusion on what the Church teaches on homosexuality. LifeSite's Washington D.C. correspondent Doug Mainwaring discusses this and other topics, including his past life as an active homosexual who came back to the faith. Doug says the Church's teachings on homosexuality are "a great beacon of light" for those struggling with same-sex attraction.

View specific date
Print All Articles