All articles from October 24, 2020


News

Opinion

  • Nothing is published in Opinion on October 24, 2020.

Blogs

  • Nothing is published in Blogs on October 24, 2020.

Episodes

  • Nothing is published in Episodes on October 24, 2020.

Video

  • Nothing is published in Video on October 24, 2020.

The Pulse

  • Nothing is published in The Pulse on October 24, 2020.

News

Shock poll claims 30% of U.S. women under 25 identify as LGBT: dire implications

There’s a ‘growing prevalence of singledom among America’s rising generation of women.’
Sat Oct 24, 2020 - 4:57 pm EST
Featured Image
Woman with pro-LGBT rainbow flag Shutterstock
Doug Mainwaring Doug Mainwaring Follow Doug
By Doug Mainwaring

October 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A shocking new private poll shared by one of the country’s leading data scientists claims that 30% of American women under 25 identify as homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. 

Before looking into the reasons for these numbers, Eric Levitz, in a New York Magazine article about the gender gap between Trump and Biden supporters, calls attention to the continuing rise of “singledom” — a preference for non-married life — among young women in the United States:

Neither the societal shift away from traditional gender roles nor the downstream cultural consequences of that shift are anywhere near complete. As Rebecca Traister has incisively argued, the growing prevalence of singledom among America’s rising generation of women is one of the most potent forces in contemporary politics. In 2009, for the first time in history, there were more unmarried women in the United States than married ones. 

A large part of the trend away from marriage is attributable to young women rejecting sexual complementarity and identifying as lesbian, bisexual or a member of the opposite sex, Levitz explains: 

And today, young women in the U.S. aren’t just unprecedentedly single; they also appear to be unprecedentedly uninterested in heterosexuality: According to private polling shared with Intelligencer by Democratic data scientist David Shor, roughly 30 percent of American women under 25 identify as LGBT; for women over 60, that figure is less than 5 percent.

As the poll is limited to women under 25, it doesn’t reflect changes to women’s sexual preference later on in life, while they’re still able to have kids.

In any case, conservative commentators were astonished at the poll’s findings.

“What’s behind this is primarily cultural. We have become an anti-natalist society,” suggests Rod Dreher, writing at The American Conservative. “And further, we have become a society that no longer values the natural family.”

“And now we have 30 percent of Gen Z women claiming to be sexually uninterested in men,” Dreher continued. “There is nothing remotely normal about that number. It is a sign of a deeply decadent culture — that is, a culture that lacks the wherewithal to survive. The most important thing that a generation can do is produce the next generation.”

“No families, no children, no future,” he added. 

Andrew Sullivan, a popular mainstream political and societal commentator who identifies as homosexual, isn’t buying the stats, which he seems to think are way out of line and suggestive of  openness to “female sexual fluidity.”  

Sullivan tweeted, “Wild guess: 25 percent bi - meaning female sexual fluidity; 3 percent exclusively lesbian; 1.9 percent trendy trans; 0.1 percent actually trans.”

In an update to his article, Rod Dreher, and many of his readers, seemed to have reached the same conclusion as Sullivan: “The “B” in “LGBT” — bisexual — is probably doing a hell of a lot of work in that 30 percent number.”

While the reported statistics about female sexuality are shocking, the rise of “singlehood” is by itself cause for great alarm. 

Increasing numbers of single people see themselves as a new victim class — objects of discrimination by society and government which seem to favor married people and families. The singlehood activists want to level the playing field by steamrolling not only laws and regulations which offer economic benefits for marriage; they would like to see marriage itself tossed in the dustbin of history.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“Any way you look at it, the United States has undergone a seismic shift in marriage culture over the past few decades,” noted Stella Morabito, a senior editor at The Federalist, in a prescient 2014 commentary.  

“A small, vocal, and organizing core of ‘singles activists’ are starting to prod and poke everyone to tell marrieds: ‘check your privilege!’” continued Morabito. “They basically claim that all economic or social benefits for marriage discriminate against singles.”

“Many singles’ activists envision a utopian society in which legally isolating every individual expands freedom,” observed Morabito. “And it might even seem that way for a little while. Some will revel in a perceived ‘New World Orgy’ of freedom. But the morning after this binge of faux freedom will bring a hangover that doesn’t go away.”

Morabito warns that the singles movement serves a statist agenda, increasing the role of government in individual lives, while diminishing individual freedom.


  andrew sullivan, homosexuality, rod dreher, singledom, stella morabito

News

Biden’s commission on SCOTUS reform a ‘frontal attack’ on court’s independence

The Democratic presidential candidate proposed a ‘bipartisan commission of scholars’ to provide ‘recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack.’
Sat Oct 24, 2020 - 3:25 pm EST
Featured Image
Joe Biden 60 Minutes / YouTube
Lianne Laurence Lianne Laurence Follow Lianne
By Lianne Laurence

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Republicans and pro-life leaders have warned that Joe Biden’s proposed bipartisan commission to recommend reforms of the Supreme Court is an attempt to hide his intention of packing the court.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of pro-life association Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List, reminded pro-life voters of the dire consequences of a Democrat win on election day, November 3.

“Make no mistake: Biden and Harris are running out the clock until Election Day, determined to expand the Supreme Court if they win,” she said in a Thursday press release.

“Their goal is to destroy the third branch of government in order to permanently enshrine abortion on demand through birth, paid for by taxpayers.”

Moreover, commentators across the political spectrum have blasted Biden’s assertion that potential SCOTUS reforms could go “well beyond court packing,” characterizing it as a “frontal attack” on the court’s independence and a “cave to the radical left.”

In a clip of a 60 Minutes interview released Thursday, Biden said he will give a “bipartisan commission of scholars” 180 days to “come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack.” (The full interview will air Sunday.)

“And it’s not about court packing,” Biden said. “There’s a number of other things that our constitutional scholars have debated and I’ve looked to see what recommendations that commission might make.”

“There’s a number of alternatives that are — go well beyond packing,” he added. “The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want. Presidents come and go. Supreme Court justices stay for generations.”

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

The implications of Biden’s proposal drew a sharp warning from Steve Guest, the Republican National Committee’s Rapid Response Director, who tweeted Biden “caves to the radical left, gets on board with destroying the Judicial branch.”

Hugh Hewitt, an NBC/MSNBC News contributor and Washington Post contributing columnist, likewise denounced the idea.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted that Biden’s proposed commission was “Truly radical … Our constitutional rights hang in the balance, and we are One Vote Away.”

His colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Biden’s proposed six-month bipartisan commission makes “zero sense constitutionally” and that the Democrats are aiming for court-packing.

“I’ve known Joe for 25 years. What he said, to me, was just gibberish. I don’t know what it means,” he told Fox & Friends on Thursday.

“Here’s what is going to happen. If they get the House, the Senate, and the White House, they’re going to expand the Supreme Court,” said Graham, adding that if elected, Biden will do the bidding of his party and its supporters.

“He’s no more in charge of the Democratic Party than I am,” the Republican senator contended. “Voters, if you don’t get that, you’re making a mistake …”

“Court-packing” refers to expanding the number of Supreme Court justices to rig outcomes in the president’s favor, which President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously attempted in hopes of stopping the court from striking down his New Deal economic policies.

Current Democrats and their supporters have called for doing the same if they regain power, particularly as a response to the impending confirmation of President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

However, polls commissioned by both the left and the right show that the majority of Americans oppose the move, and Biden and vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris have come under fire for dodging the hot-button issue during their campaign.

Now, Biden’s first relatively definitive statement on the subject has been criticized by Democrats as a “punt,” and by Republicans as yet another dodge, according to Politico.

“I don’t know why he wouldn’t just have the guts to say he wants to pack the court, because I think his base clearly wants to pack the court,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Politico. “It’s totally disingenuous.”

SBA List’s Dannenfelser also slammed Biden’s proposal to form a commission as his “latest punt” and “intentionally unclear, designed to confuse voters.”

According to the SBA List’s newly commissioned poll by Marist conducted between October 14-15, nearly two in three voters (61 percent) — including 63 percent of independents and 31 percent of Democrats — oppose Biden adding more justices to the Supreme Court if elected.

Similarly, an October 15-18 New York Times-Siena College poll found that 58 percent of “likely voters” oppose court expansion in contrast to the 31 percent who approve it, the New York Times reported.

“A majority of Democrats supported the idea — 57 percent to 28 percent — but that is far short of the backing such legislation would need to pass,” the article stated.

Both Biden and Harris are endorsed by Planned Parenthood. Biden, who claims to be Catholic, supports “codifying” Roe in federal law; repealing the Hyde Amendment (which bars direct public funding of most abortions); forcing states to accept Medicare funding for Planned Parenthood; reversing the Mexico City Policy (which bars federal funds from supporting abortion overseas); and directing the Justice Department to “do everything in its power” to block virtually all state pro-life laws, including parental notification requirements, ultrasound laws, and waiting periods.

LifeSite’s Calvin Freiburger contributed to this report.

RELATED

‘Well beyond’ court packing: Biden proposes commission to transform Supreme Court

Biden doubles down on his commitment to making abortion on demand the ‘law of the land’


  court-packing, joe biden, kamala harris, marjorie dannenfelser, sba list, supreme court, ted cruz

News

Catholic youth outside Vatican ask Pope to clarify gay civil union remarks

Pachamama dunker Alexander Tschugguel asked the Pope to explain his comments on homosexuality.
Sat Oct 24, 2020 - 2:42 pm EST
Featured Image
Dorothy Cummings McLean
Dorothy Cummings McLean Dorothy Cummings McLean Follow Dorothy
By Dorothy Cummings McLean

VATICAN CITY, October 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) ― Just a few hours ago, a group of young Catholics gathered in St. Peter’s Square in Rome, asking Pope Francis “for clarity on same-sex unions.” In a documentary released earlier this week, the Holy Father had expressed his support for homosexual civil unions.

Led by Alexander Tschugguel, known as the Pachamama dunker, the young people of Austria’s St. Boniface Institute gathered in St. Peter’s Square today with a banner reading, “Holy Father, we ask for clarity on same-sex unions.”

They were joined by a number of Catholics from other countries who knelt in the piazza, silently praying the rosary together.

After Roman police asked Tschugguel to put away the banner, he joined the others in prayer and led them in the “Salve Regina.” Then a priest led the group in the Angelus prayer.

One of the faithful praying in the square told LifeSiteNews that Tschugguel and many of the other Austrians had driven all night to reach the Vatican today.

Tschugguel, 27, is famous among Catholics for an event at the Ponte Sant’Angelo, a short walk from the Vatican, last October: Horrified by the presence of a number of statues identified with the pagan earth goddess Pachamama in a Catholic church near the Vatican, Tschugguel carried them out, took them to the bridge, and threw them in the Tiber.

The statues were also involved in several religious ceremonies and events with Pope Francis present.

Earlier today, Tschugguel told reporters that this time, he and the St. Boniface Institute were there for a completely different reason.

“Today, we find ourselves here in front of the Holy Angel’s Bridge in front of the Castel Sant’Angelo again,” he said. “This year, I am standing here because there was an interview published where the Holy Father asked for the introduction of civil unions in different political states.”

Tschugguel said such interviews have been a problem since the beginning of the present pontificate for faithful Catholics because the enemies of the Church use them to fight against the faith and advance an anti-Catholic agenda.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

“This has happened again here,” he said.

“For example, the President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, said that now, encouraged through these words of the Holy Father, he’s going to introduce homosexual ‘marriage’ in Venezuela,” he continued.

“An Austrian bishop said that he’s very happy that the pope is [commending] something that is 100% introduced in Austria already. By that I think he means homosexual ‘marriage,’ which was introduced last year.”

In America, Tschugguel added, “infamous” Fr. James Martin, SJ, said that this “was a very big step” in supporting “LGBT people.”

The young Austrian asked for clarity, reflecting on the controversy around the documentary “Francesco,” which apparently featured the Pope’s approval of same-sex civil unions, but was allegedly also selectively edited. Some have argued the pontiff’s remarks were not translated correctly, either.

“We don’t know what the Holy Father really said, but now we are here to ask the Holy Father: Please, please, bring us clarity on homosexual unions. Please go out to the cameras, please go out to the microphones to explain to the people how you really meant this and what the context of … this interview was, and how the Catholic teaching is still the Catholic teaching.”

He added, “We ask you, Holy Father, what is the Catholic teaching on homosexual civil unions?”

Tschugguel told LifeSiteNews that some the Austrian bishops support the activities of the St. Boniface Institute, while others do not.

“But that’s not really a problem for us,” he laughed. “We think that to serve God’s will we have to do what is right and lawful. And also, what I do now, today, here, is not about me as a person … but about the One True Faith.”

The young man said that he has a lot of support among young Austrian Catholics and Austrian priests.

“Many people come up to me and tell me, sometimes very publicly, that [they] want to be friends with [me] or invite me to give speeches. I travel quite frequently to give speeches.”

Others are a little more cautious, telling Tschugguel that they are big fans of what he does, while asking him not to tell anyone else.

“So we see there’s still a policy of fear among the priests, but I see change. The young priests are normally way more faithful than the so-called ’68-generation priests.”

He clarified that there are “wonderful” priests among the now-elderly generation, but that, given the times, it’s really a “miracle” when someone wants to live a celibate life and become a priest.

The married Catholic layman said that “gay civil unions” were a “first step” in the LGBT agenda, and alluded to the statement of LGBT activist-priest Fr. James Martin, SJ, that Pope Francis’ alleged approval of them “is a major step forward in the church’s support for LGBTQ people.”

“What is the next step?” Tschugguel wondered.

He agreed with the Pope’s remarks about people with same-sex attractions having a right to their families, the families of their birth or childhood, and wanted it to be clear that families should not be kicking out their sons and daughters with same-sex attractions.

“As Catholics we want families to stay together. We want families to pray together. We want families to be Catholic together,” he told media.

“So that’s not the discussion. The discussion is really and clearly that what he said in this interview is used to promote an LGBT agenda, first introducing a gay civil union and afterwards introducing homosexual ‘marriage.’”

Tschugguel noted that in the past Pope Francis has spoken out against such LGBT agenda items as homosexual adoption. Right now, however, the media is telling us he is supporting the ideology, and that this is not good for the reputation of the pope and insults God, Tschugguel explained.

“It is an offense to God if people use quotes from the Holy Father, his vicar on earth, to fight against the one true teaching,” he said.

The young Catholic also quoted from a Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2003 document, signed by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, called “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.”

“Respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions,” Tschugguel read.

“I think that’s very right,” he added, and pointed out that there are already measures in place to allow people to choose friends to visit them in hospital or inherit their money.

“So what is the reason we should introduce gay civil union? There is no reason.”

The St. Boniface Institute has taken part in other public demonstrations of faith in opposition to clerics currying favour with LGBT activists. Last November the group held a rosary rally outside Vienna’s St. Stephen’s Cathedral to protest a pro-LGBT benefit concert starring a drag queen taking place inside. In January 2020, the group joined other Catholics, including Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in Munich to protest Cardinal Reinhard Marx and the German bishops “Synodal Path.”

Developing …


  alexander tschugguel, catholic, francesco, homosexuality, pope francis, vatican

News

Republicans hesitate, then subpoena Facebook, Twitter CEOs over pro-Biden censorship

Campaign contribution numbers provide some indications of where big tech money may be influencing Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.
Sat Oct 24, 2020 - 8:42 am EST
Featured Image
Twitter and Facebook Shutterstock
Patrick Delaney Patrick Delaney Follow
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to issue subpoenas to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over allegations of censorship.

The social media giant had engaged in the “suppression and/or censorship” of bombshell reports by the New York Post charging members of the Biden Family with significant financial corruption — allegations which could serve to hurt Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s presidential run.

The vote comes following promises made on October 15th during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, but was postponed on Monday “after some panel Republicans expressed reservation,” Politico reported.

Alarming concerns have been growing among conservatives about the enormous power of Big Tech companies over discourse in the public square, and their resulting interference in the election process. Conservatives have seen their publications and news reports suppressed by tech giants like Facebook and Twitter, but also Google, which owns the streaming platform YouTube.

In one interview, Harmeet Dhillon, an American lawyer and Republican Party official, warned GOP leadership of inaction. “Republicans are ignoring this at their peril … we are going to lose every single election going forward if we don’t put a stop to this bias,” she said.

Striving to understand general Republican inaction, or incompetence, on this fundamental threat to their short- and long-term interests, Dhillon expressed concerns about “Republicans being paid off by Big Tech” or those GOP members who are simply “ill-informed.”

A quick analysis of campaign contributions reveals, first, a heavy bias of Big Tech communities and their PACs in favor of the liberal agenda.

Secondly, it shows a possible correlation between financial donations to some Republicans, particularly those on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and their apparent hesitation to engage the threat to free speech with force and urgency.

As of October 15th, donations from Alphabet (Google), for example, have flowed into the coffers of Democrats at a rate of 93.81% as compared to 6.61% for Republicans. Individual employees or owners of Alphabet, and their immediate family, have donated almost $1.9 million to the Biden campaign, and less than $45,000 to the Trump campaign.

Image

The same holds true for other tech giants including Twitter, which provides 99.18% of its contributions to Democrats and a whopping 0.82% to Republicans. Facebook, also subject to yesterday’s senate committee subpoena, posts similar numbers coming in at 91.75% for Democrats and 8.25% for Republicans.

All of this serves to establish a reasonable political motive on the part of these corporations to — as expressed by Sens. Hawley and Cruz — “rig an election” through interference “in a way that has no precedent in the history of our country.”

The campaign contribution numbers also give some indications of where big tech money may be influencing Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, for better or for worse, including those who may have hesitated and “expressed reservation” postponing the subpoena process earlier this week.

Big Tech companies are not listed anywhere in Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) top one hundred contributing organizations, for instance, and his record shows he has been zealously opposing censorship of conservatives in the public square.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who has also shown committed leadership on this issue, has received only one PAC contribution of $7,500 from Microsoft this cycle.

— Article continues below Petition —
  Show Petition Text
0 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 1!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this
petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
  Hide Petition Text

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) received only $2,700 from individuals associated with Amazon, and Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) received only $10,000 from PACs associated with Microsoft and Amazon.

The contributions to some other Republican senators on the committee, however, show why there may be hesitation to engage the threat of Big Tech censorship.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) comes in with a combined $138,677 in donations this cycle, with Microsoft being his eighth largest contributor overall.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) seconds Lee at $120,048, including $23,800 from Facebook, and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) comes in third with $92,155, including a $20,000 PAC donation from Facebook.

For Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), his total Big Tech donations amount to $79,950, with Google being his 17th largest donor, and Microsoft his 24th.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has received $57,950, and Google remains his eighth largest donor.

Finally, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) has received $47,320, Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) $32,082, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) $17,500, with Microsoft being her fourth largest contributor.

In 2015, then-candidate Donald Trump explained how campaign donations work. “I gave to many people [politicians] … I give to everybody,” he said. “When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.”

RELATED

VIDEO SERIES: Uncensored: Big Tech Versus Free Speech

GOP senators decry Big Tech censorship of NY Post story exposing Biden corruption

Ted Cruz: Big Tech censorship is ‘greatest threat to freedom of speech’

Big Tech will likely decide outcome of Nov. election, no matter what Republicans do


  big tech, campaign finance, censorship, facebook, jack dorsey, mark zuckerberg, senate judiciary committee, twitter