America • Environment • Post • Pro-Life • Satire

B.S. News: How You People Can Save My Planet

This week, I’m turning over my column space to Madam Henrietta Von Wanderlust, vice president of external affairs for Prune Our Planet. Madam (her preferred personal pronoun) Wanderlust’s views are her own and do not necessarily reflect the views of B.S. News—unless you agree with them.


In my capacity as vice president of external affairs for Prune Our Planet (POP), I have engaged in extensive online research and exhausted millions of taxpayer grants (and the patience of my estranged spouse). To what end? 

To the end of the earth. 

Yes, Virginia, there isn’t a Santa Claus and the science is settled about climate change. Hurricanes, tornados, floods, earthquakes, income inequality, undocumented migration, the return of once thought extinct diseases amongst California’s homeless, our non-profit’s annual “POP’s Global Gala, Vegan Picnic, and Cornhole Extravaganza” fundraiser being rained out—the number of catastrophes explained by climate change is rising even faster than sea levels.

Even as we resist the ravages of climate change and request a new park permit, another threat to our global village has emerged to hasten the impending climate apocalypse, one which many experts, some of whom may well be scientists, feel is already less than twelve short years away.

This climate change exacerbating new threat is populism; and, yes, that means you people—namely, deplorable climate deniers.

Regrettably, because of the Russian usurper Trump, populism is too often narrowly construed as a political problem for people better than its supporters. This is understandable given Trump’s pernicious, oppressive impact upon a more socially just and equitable world, such as the booming economy that is generating oodles of carbon into the atmosphere without offsets or a mitigating tax. Going deeper, one need not possess the genius of Rob Reiner to glean the dire social, cultural, sexual, environmental, and financial ramifications for the survival of the earth and my non-profit. 

So consider this a “woke up” call for you somnambulant, deplorable climate deniers. Bluntly, there are just too damn many of you people scurrying about the earth; despoiling her primordial beauty for vanity items like shelter and warmth; and devouring her scare resources to feed yourselves and your children at the expense of future generations. In short, on the defining issue of our time—climate change!—Goddess Gaia is calling to say, “it’s not me; it’s you people.” 

Given the now settled fact that you people’s selfishness is expediting Doomsday for your betters, how can you live with yourself?

That was a rhetorical question.

Madam Henrietta Von Wanderlust

But there is good news: You don’t have to. And we at POP are here to help.

Despite the Malthusian epithets hurled against those who love the planet by you people who don’t, we hold no grudge, because that would entail valuing your opinion. Rest assured, then, we are genuinely concerned for you people’s ultimate wellbeing, for being pro-planet is being pro-people. And what are we pro- you people doing? We are all in on helping you people stop being selfish and start saving my planet. 

Inspired by Margaret Sanger, the champion of the “Addition by Subtraction” school of boosting the common good, to eradicate the threat of populism we, the enlightened few here at POP, have commenced a bold, inclusive initiative embracing without reservation all manner of you people: “Get Woke and Go Night-Night.” (And, if we’ve inadvertently omitted any manner of you people, let us know who and where we might reach them.) 

Presently, far too many of you people lack the moral courage to off yourselves for the common good. Nonetheless, eternal optimists that we are, we at POP expect that eventually you people still clinging to your God and guns will realize that weapon is your highway to heaven; and our ticket to an earthly utopia without you people. It’s a win-win.

Larry the Polar Bear: Will you follow his glorious example?

Now before any populist demagogues and their allied Russian trolls take to Twitter to twist our words and incite you people into grabbing your pitchforks and torches to storm the guarded gate of our non-profit’s lavish headquarters, I’m going to tell you about Larry the Polar Bear. POP’s senior staff, partners, family, friends, journalists, local community activists and two hitchhikers we picked up on the way to LAX, were on our latest taxpayer-funded fact-finding expedition, this time to Canada’s frigid climes to study ice levels and gauge how long we had until climate change killed us all—again, thanks to you people. Outside the ski lodge, we spied a celebration of polar bears, with Larry perched on his hind legs majestically hovering above his furry friends on the (oddly) still frozen tundra. Playfully baring his teeth, Larry took a few menacing steps in our direction, which only deepened our angst about how he and his fellow polar bears were doomed because of you people. Quickly, we took Larry’s measure; and, hearts breaking, we raised an anguished, appreciative cheer for the regal beast while our ski instructor Jacques leveled a shotgun and did what needed to be done. 

It is comforting to wonder that, if Larry knew he could help stop climate change and if he had opposable thumbs, he voluntarily would have made his sacrifice for the common good. What one doesn’t have to wonder about is the established fact that Larry’s demise benefited the common good of his grateful polar bear peers, because they now have more resources to sustain them until we stop climate change by implementing our “Get Woke, Go Night-Night” all-inclusive package for you people’s permanent vacation. As for the altruistic polar bear to whom so many owe so much? Fittingly, the altruistic Larry graces a place of honor in that awkwardly shaped corner of my office.

As he stared down both barrels, did Larry know his sacrifice would bring such benefits to his fellow polar bears and such joy to my interior decorator? Of course not. Dr. Doolittle isn’t real, you people! But Larry and his sacrifice are, kind of, thanks to the best taxidermist your tax dollars can hire.

Due to the vicious vagaries of evolution, Larry never had the chance to peruse our online brochure, How You People Can Save My Planet, or contribute to our non-profit. But he did kick the bucket to save the planet; and, as the settled veterinary science suggests: Larry likely didn’t know he had to go for the common good, but would have done it just the same if he did. You people, on the other hand, have no excuse for denying climate change and wanting to go on, despite all the credible evidence you people are the problem. 

Thus, I muse for the common good: Given the stakes for our planet and your betters, will you people follow Larry’s glorious example of self-sacrifice? Can you people stop being selfish; put your Mauser where your mouth is; and “Get Woke and Go Night-Night”? Bluntly, can you people do you—for the future . . . for the children! 

I know you people will—some voluntarily. 

Remember: when you’re planted, my planet will thank you. 

Copyright © 2019 B.S. News

Photo credit(s): Getty Images


Democrats • Elections • Identity Politics • Post • Pro-Life • race

President Trump Was Right About Sleepy Joe Biden

President Trump was right about Joe Biden. Something is definitely “off” about the former vice president. On the debate stage Thursday night, he seemed confused, defensive, and just generally out of it.

Consider his response to the inevitable attack regarding his boasts about working with notorious segregationists and his own remarks during the 1970s supporting school segregation. Biden and his entire campaign knew that he was going to have to answer for that at some point. Yet when the criticism came, he didn’t even seem to comprehend what the fuss was about.

In one particularly memorable exchange with Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Biden tried to claim that he wasn’t actually against desegregation, just federally mandated desegregation, forcing Harris to explain to him that—at the very time he was making his pro-segregation comments in the 1970s—the federal government was compelled to intervene because states and cities were refusing to implement civil rights laws.

Biden never quite managed to shake the bewildered expression from his face throughout the debate, but perhaps the lowest point came when he replied to a question with, “I’m sorry. I beg your pardon. I didn’t hear.”

Even after he and the moderator had straightened out that he did, in fact, raise his hand to indicate that he supported giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants, Biden’s response bordered on the incoherent. It’s all here if you have the stomach to read the transcript.

“All Democrats just raised their hands for giving millions of illegal aliens unlimited healthcare,” President Trump pointed out on Twitter shortly after Biden’s awkward effort to jump on that bandwagon. “How about taking care of American Citizens first!? That’s the end of that race!”

Biden can learn the language and say what he needs to say, like an old rock-n-roller trying to stay hip with the latest trends in music, but he can’t change what he is: a 76-year-old white guy in a party that’s abandoned most serious policy and coherent ideology in favor of the intersectionalist dogma that old white men are responsible for all the world’s problems.

It doesn’t help that Biden has, at various times, held the kinds of positions these evil straight white male oppressors are supposed to have used to oppress one victim group after another.

For instance, the modern Democratic Party stands in complete opposition to President Trump’s immigration policies, and is flirting with abolishing ICE and open borders. Yet, in the past, Joe Biden voted to build 700 miles of border wall and punish “sanctuary cities.”

It’s also a party that considers on-demand abortion up to the day a baby is born to be a mother’s human right, but Biden is a Roman Catholic who entered the U.S. Senate determined to overturn Roe v. Wade and even voted to remove exceptions for rape and incest from restrictions on federal abortion funding into the 1980s.

Today’s Democrats also take immense “pride” in their sycophantic support for the LGBT community. But in the 1990s, Biden voted in favor of banning homosexuals from marrying or serving in the military. He did not come out in favor of gay marriage until the Supreme Court was on the verge of allowing it.

Biden is also a guy who spent the 1970s arguing in favor of school segregation while getting along “civilly” with the old segregationist Dixiecrats—and his opponents raked him over the coals about that during the debate in Miami.

Joe Biden has always been a consummate politician. He has recanted, apologized, caved, and adopted the intersectional party line on each and every one of these issues, and plenty of others, too. For years, he has conspicuously self-flagellated in public appearances, extolling, for example, how great it is that America is becoming minority-white. He’s clearly aware that his “unbearable whiteness” requires him to atone for his membership in the oppressor’s club.

That instinct for ideological malleability wasn’t evident during Biden’s first debate performance of the 2020 campaign, however. His halting, fumbling responses to entirely predictable criticisms is surely forcing many Democrat primary voters to reconsider their support for the party’s supposed frontrunner.

President Trump was the first to notice that Biden has “lost a step,” but everyone who witnessed the former vice president’s performance in Miami is now painfully aware of just how accurate the president’s observation really was.

Photo credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • Progressivism • The Left

Hugh Culverhouse, Planned Parenthood, and Eugenics

The University of Alabama on May 29 announced its plans to return a $26.5 million donation from the largest donor in the university’s history. The announcement came only hours after the donor, Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr., called for students to boycott the university in response to Alabama’s recent ban on abortion.

Culverhouse claims that the university returned his donation because of his statements on abortion. The university disagrees, and insists that its decision was based solely on Culverhouse’s attempts to control the administration.

Culverhouse published an op-ed in the Washington Post on June 7, attributing the university’s decision to his abortion stance. In it, Culverhouse notes that his father was on the board of Planned Parenthood in the 1950s, and would have opposed strongly Alabama’s new law, which prohibits abortions except in cases that endanger the mother’s life.

That Culverhouse boasts about his father’s role on the board of Planned Parenthood in the 1950s suggests that he has no idea about the origins of Planned Parenthood and the activities the group was involved in during its early years. Or he does, and just doesn’t care.

Though the modern iteration of the organization promotes itself as central to women’s “healthcare,” Planned Parenthood was founded with one particular goal in mind: eugenics.

The eugenics movement aims to “improve” the human population by “controlled breeding,” to increase the occurrence of desirable characteristics. The Nazis were fans of eugenics. So, too, was Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

Sanger started the group in the early 1920s to promote birth control, as the birth control movement was developing alongside the eugenics movement.  By the 1920s, support from academics and intellectual elites had brought eugenics to the forefront of the public mind.

For these elites, eugenics was a tool to promote the reproduction of those considered mentally, physically, and racially “superior,” and to prevent the reproduction of the “inferior.” Birth control and abortion—excellent tools for genetic manipulation—were intimately tied to the eugenics movement from the beginning. In fact, Sanger, advocated for contraception and sterilization as eugenic tools. In a 1950 letter to Mrs. Stanley McCormick, Sanger wrote:

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend on a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty-stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.

The “dysgenic types” or undesirable people to whom Sanger refers included especially African Americans—a group Sanger called “the great problem of the South,” and “the group with ‘the greatest economic, health and social problems.’” In 1939, Sanger launched the Negro Project to disseminate birth control throughout Southern black communities. She wanted black ministers involved, noting, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

It is not without a degree of sordid irony to point out that even today, African American women obtain almost half of the abortions in the United States, despite making up only around 13 percent of the population. The nationwide abortion ratio among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio it is for white women.

Even beyond Sanger’s leadership of Planned Parenthood, the focus on eugenics persisted. In 1959, Alan Guttmacher, a president of Planned Parenthood and vice president of the American Eugenic Society, urged “the quality of the parents” to be taken into account when considering a pregnancy. The question of whether to allow abortion, he said, must be “separated from the emotional, moral and religious concepts” and “must have as its focus normal, healthy infants born into homes peopled with parents who have healthy bodies and minds.” Notably, Guttmacher believed that “it should be permissible to abort any pregnancy . . . in which there is a strong probability of an abnormal or malformed infant.”

Lest one consider these questions dated relics of another time, the eugenic potential of abortion is even greater in 2019 than it was in the 1930s and 1940s.

For proof of this, look no further than Iceland, where doctors boast that they have “basically eradicated” Down syndrome. They have done so, of course, by aborting babies who screen positively for the condition in utero. “We don’t look at abortion as murder,” said one hospital counselor. “We look at it as a thing we have ended.”

Iceland isn’t alone. In Denmark, 98 percent of pregnancies with a Down syndrome diagnosis are terminated. In France, it’s 77 percent. In the United States, 67 percent of babies with Down syndrome are aborted.

A Nation Divided
All of this, of course, plays out against the backdrop of a country that remains tremendously divided over abortion. And though pro-abortion activists treat the question as settled law post Roe v. Wade, it is becoming increasingly clear that the public is not satisfied with the Supreme Court allowing one abortion law to govern all states.

This year, and especially in the past few months, states have become increasingly willing to test the courts by passing new abortion laws. Arkansas on March 15 banned abortion after 18 weeks. The same month, Utah, too, banned abortion after 18 weeks, and Mississippi banned abortion after it is possible to detect a fetal heartbeat (generally around six weeks of pregnancy). Ohio passed a similar “fetal heartbeat bill” in April. On May 7, Georgia, did too. Eight days later, Alabama passed a near-total ban on abortions, the most restrictive law since Roe v. Wade. On May 24, Missouri banned abortion after eight weeks; six days later, Louisiana signed its own heartbeat bill into law.

Unless Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will remain legal, though it may be subject to some restrictions. The states recognize this reality, and many supporters of state abortion bans see their ultimate purpose not as banning abortion directly, but rather as pushing the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade.

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey expressed this sentiment in a statement of support for Alabama’s abortion ban. “At least for the short term,” Ivey acknowledges, “this bill may . . . be unenforceable.” However, she writes, “The sponsors of the bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur.”

At least one justice on the court seems prepared for this eventuality. In a stirring concurrence in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Justice Clarence Thomas urged the court to consider the history of abortion as a means of achieving eugenic goals. In heavily cited and matter-of-fact prose, Thomas, only the second African American Supreme Court Justice in history, outlined how Margaret Sanger aimed to suppress the procreation of the black community, and otherwise eliminate the “unfit.”

“This case highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation,” he wrote. Regarding Indiana’s ban on selective abortion, Thomas went on, “This law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.”

Abortion supporters like Hugh Culverhouse have long ignored the eugenic potential of abortion, just as they have ignored the sordid history of Planned Parenthood. Far from the champion of the underprivileged that it is touted to be, Planned Parenthood supports policies that would promote their diminution or elimination.

Now, as states saddle the Supreme Court with increasingly strict abortion restrictions, the court will be forced to contend not only with public opinion, but also with history. As Thomas writes in his concurrence, “Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the Court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s.”

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Declaration of Independence • Democrats • Post • Pro-Life • Progressivism • The Left

Justice Thomas on the Dynamite That Is Natural Right

If it’s true that “natural right is dynamite,” as political philosopher Leo Strauss wrote, then Justice Clarence Thomas just went nuclear on the abortion debate.

While Thomas’s concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood has received considerable commentary, his deepening of the judicial and, hence, the political debate over abortion demands further elaboration. His reply to the leading threat to the principles of the Declaration of Independence is his latest attempt in a career of restoring its authority.

Thomas had argued, “this [Indiana] law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” The Indiana law had barred abortion for the purposes of sex and race selection, and for fetal disabilities.

Thomas critics contend he wrongly introduced elements of the now-(justly) maligned eugenics movement into the abortion debate. But recall that Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade observed (as Professor David Bernstein reminded me), “population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.”

I would argue instead that Blackmun was trying to obfuscate the issue, whose terrible clarity Thomas was trying to highlight: “From the beginning, birth control and abortion were promoted as means of effectuating eugenics.” Thomas’s approach even cites G. K. Chesterton’s essay on eugenics, in which the English critic harrumphed, “Most Eugenists are Euphemists.”

In his 20-page opinion, Thomas cites two contemporary advocates of contraception and eugenics:

[Dr. Alan Guttmacher] added that the question whether to allow abortion must be “separated from emotional, moral and religious concepts” and “must have as its focus normal, healthy infants born into homes peopled with parents who have healthy bodies and minds.” . . . Similarly, legal scholar Glanville Williams wrote that he was open to the possibility of eugenic infanticide, at least in some situations, explaining that “an eugenic killing by a mother, exactly paralleled by the bitch that kills her misshapen puppies, cannot confidently be pronounced immoral.” . . . The Court cited Williams’ book for a different proposition in Roe v. Wade (citations omitted).

The ugly nakedness of the eugenics dogma, with its attendant euphemisms, stands exposed in Thomas’s explanation of Roe. No longer can credible critics of the court turn away from the monstrosity and focus on federalism and substantive due process clause interpretation issues.

The new, politicized abortion goes to the core of American political principles and the abiding integrity of the Declaration of Independence. The abortion debate has long since morphed from “safe, legal, and rare” into something much more disturbing. In this, critics of Roe rightly align themselves with critics of the pro-slavery case of Dred Scott (1857), as the most thoughtful pro-life voices have done for decades. They deny that the destruction of future generations should be given no more moral significance than “the bitch that kills her misshapen puppies.”

Here’s how deeply the Thomas charge cuts: The eugenics movement, which had emphasized artificial contraception as a means of population control, was part of the Progressive movement dedicated to replacing the American Founding with the willful assertions of History. In attacking the Declaration of Independence, preeminent Progressive Woodrow Wilson mocked the document and insisted, “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop.” To be more precise, we in charge politically must develop it. A successor of Wilson would later declare: “We are the change.” That is, we, meaning “we women,” direct evolution.

This will to mastery of nature empowers to varying degrees all three waves of feminism—roughly, legal equality of the sexes, gender equality, and a feminism of superiority. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat compared abortion policy in feminism’s last two stages:

The legalization of abortion in America happened in the transition from this second dispensation to the third, contemporary one, in which feminist arguments predominate and reproductive policy is understood primarily in terms of female liberty and general sexual emancipation. Which is why, in those 1970s debates over abortion, you can see both arguments at work — with what [Supreme Court Justice] Ruth Bader Ginsburg once described [in an interview] as a desire to subsidize abortions for “populations that we don’t want to have too many of” coexisting with her own rights-of-woman arguments.

The third wave of feminism is in fact a new form of the old enemy of American liberty, aristocracy, government by an elite. The older forms of feminism (for women’s suffrage) and what Douthat calls “female liberty and general sexual emancipation” set the conditions for a feminism of superiority—aristocratic feminism.

The third wave of feminism dispenses with equality and now promotes its own version of freedom. The existence of future generations depends on a woman’s choice and her doctor—personal will and science. This tyranny over nature and time, which has always been contemplated as a possibility, goes back to the 5th century B.C. in Aristophanes’ Assembly of Women. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus adds science to these speculations about the malleability of human nature.

We know well the rest of the story, thanks to the scholarship of Scott Yenor, first among others. Yenor discerns the unending drama of this latest feminism: “It is difficult to imagine how the work of undoing gender could be completed: It seems to demand continual social transformation not only in the name of liberation from past impositions, but also as a way to secure recognition for tomorrow’s desires.”

Older forms of feminism had to respect natural sexual differences, but the newer version brushes aside sex as merely socially constructed “gender.” The right of abortion is a defining necessity for this new form of eugenics. Without abortion rights, the female gender lacks ultimate power over the fate of humanity. The very name of “eugenics” presupposed a common genos or species. A gyngenics or female species would destroy the human race.

Against this horror, the unalienable rights of pursuing happiness and preserving safety of the Declaration of Independence remain our anchor, as it has been against earlier forms of tyranny.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: Susan Walsh-Pool/Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Democrats • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • Progressivism • The Culture

Death and the Democrats

Our nation is unique.

Most every other nation was established in a capricious fashion. Whether defined by an ethnicity, a linguistic community, or the happenstance of being ruled by a royal dynastic elite, other countries were not the result of their people appealing to first principles, of building a political structure from scratch based upon the lessons of prior centuries. Ours is different.

Yes, our Republic was born out of war, as has been the case with so many others over the centuries. But our Revolutionary War wasn’t simply waged over a brute demand for self-determination. The catalyst for the fight that would result in our being an independent nation-state was the grievous transgressions of a monarch who our Founding Fathers saw as acting in direct contravention to objective and universal truths.

After our unlikely victory against what was then the most powerful empire the world had ever seen, our forefathers enshrined those truths into our founding documents. And the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution have served not only to codify those principles as the foundation of our political system for at least 11 generations, they have become a beacon for hundreds of millions of non-Americans around the world who also believe in “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” When dissidents escape house arrest or brave shark-infested waters in search of freedom, their destination is rarely the French embassy or the shores of Africa.

When discussing rights—particularly those rights enumerated in our Constitution—we often weigh priorities. Freedom of speech purists, for example, insist that without the First Amendment, all other rights are nugatory, while Second Amendment advocates stand unwavering in their conviction that without the right of the population to protect itself from a tyrannical government, everything else is hypothetical.

Yet it should be obvious where our existence as free men and women starts. Not with the right of association, or a free press, or freedom of conscience, or the right to keep and bear arms. Everything begins with the right to life.

That is, unless you are a Democrat in 2019.

The Democratic Party has quite literally become the political party of death. Their promotion of abortion for any reason—or no reason at all—has now gone beyond the Orwellian demand for “reproductive rights” (how killing a baby in the womb can be twisted into a “right” of reproduction is perverse on its face), to prominent Democrats becoming champions of not only this trimester abortion but also “fourth trimester” infanticide.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo earlier this year signed a bill to allow abortion up until the baby’s due date, and  Governor Ralph Northam of Virginia—the “Butcher of Richmond”—openly advocated a mother’s right to kill her child after a botched abortion leaves the child alive and outside the womb. This is today’s Democratic Party.

Remember, not so long ago, the Democratic Party was the party of working-class Catholics, Italian immigrants, Irish manual laborers who would find the mere idea of politically sanctioned infanticide rightly abhorrent. Today there is no place for pro-life views inside that party. In fact, their attitude to the foremost cause of deliberate, non-accidental, death in America today, isn’t simply approval, it is a diabolical celebration.

Cuomo’s bill was deliberately passed by the New York Senate on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and as it became law the Assembly, with its Democrat supermajority, cheered in unison as if it were VE Day. Then, in the style of a banana republic, the political overlords gave the order that One World Trade Center be lit up in pink in celebration. New York is a city where 30 percent of babies are killed in the womb and where more black children are aborted than born alive.  

The Democrats 25 years ago promised America that abortions would be “legal, safe and rare.” They may be legal since Roe v. Wade, but they are neither safe nor especially rare. Arguably America’s greatest mass murderer, the abortionist Kermit Gosnell, took a mother’s life as well as killing seven babies outside the womb. As to rare, the U.S. abortion industry that Planned Parenthood champions, kills at least 600,000 babies in utero each year.

For perspective, the 70,000 plus deaths last year from opioid overdoses, is deemed to be a national crisis with federal and state programs created to staunch the flow of drugs into our nations and prevent needless loss of life. But more than eight times that number are killed as a matter of choice, not addiction or accident, and the Left celebrates it and wants more. With abortion taking 41 million souls globally last year, “reproductive rights” have become the biggest killer in the world. Again, for perspective: the Holocaust took 6 million lives; the Vietnam War—on both sides—cost the lives of 1.3 million. Abortion kills more than 40 million humans in just 12 months.

The arch-eugenicist Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler would be most proud.

While these facts and figures are all shocking, they should surprise no one. The Democratic Party has become what it set out to be: a collective defined by a refusal to admit that eternal and objective truth exists. As Hillary Clinton’s thesis from Wesleyan is titled: “There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.”

Quite clearly, the Democrats have fully internalized the “ends justify the means” mantra, a philosophy that when taken to its logical conclusion leads directly to the gas chambers or the abortion mills, which take tens of millions of lives per year.

As a result, the 2020 elections will not simply be about a second term for the Make America Great Again agenda. With recent state anti-abortion bills increasing in number, 2020 will be about a return to decency and a reversal of the culture of death the Democrats have embraced.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

Cultural Marxism • Democrats • Post • Pro-Life • The Left

‘Abortion’: Sloppy Thinking on Filicide in the Womb

In the wake of the Alabama state legislature’s decision to pass what its opponents call an “extreme” or “virtual abortion ban,” the topic of “abortion” is once more in the public eye—where it belongs.

This time, though, the self-proclaimed enemies of this hideous practice would do their cause a good turn by being more studious about the terms in which they cast their position.

And the first term that they must revisit, the most fundamental of them all, is that of abortion itself.

“Abortion” is a term of political convenience for those who value the practice to which the term is applied. “Abortion” is an essentially value-neutral word, one that is more at home within the realm of scientific or medical discourse than within the realm of morality.

Thus, the word by design conceals from view the nature of the act to which it is assigned. “Abortion” makes it sound as impersonal as any other procedure that involves the removal of, say, a tumor, a skin tag, or a rotten tooth.

The truth of the matter, however, is that there has never been a single “abortion” in this country. Rather, there have been tens of millions of instances of mothers killing their children while the latter were still in their wombs.

Whether they realize it or not, when “pro-lifers” refer to this act of killing to which they claim to object as an “abortion,” they minimize its moral significance and reinforce their opponents’ claim that the entity being “aborted” is somehow less human, if it’s human at all, than other members of the human species who are killed.

There are still other terms that the opponents of this ghastly act must jettison. Take pro-life,” for example—a term that is not only vapid, but which obscures the evil to which the “pro-lifer” purportedly objects behind the abstraction of “life,” a term encompassing all species of living organisms.

Remarkably, another term of their enemies that at least some opponents of killing in the womb continue to use is that of “fetus.” That the latter is meant to dehumanize the human whose life is ended before it is born can be gotten readily enough by the fact that no one who welcomes the impending birth of a child ever refers to that child as a “fetus.” When my wife and I found out that she had conceived our son, neither we nor anyone we knew—including her doctors—ever referred to the “fetus” growing within her.

No, we all excitedly anticipated the arrival of the baby.

And our experience is the experience of every parent who does not seek an end to the life of the child who has not yet been born.

But another term that misleads is that of the unborn.” Courtesy of a reader (who is a physician, if I’m not mistaken), it was drawn to my attention that, strictly speaking, the human being in its mother’s womb is not “unborn,” but, rather, pre-born. “Unborn” sounds too much like non-born, or non-being, nothingness. When something is “undone,” for example, it essentially ceases to be.

It is a pre-born child or baby whose life is ended by way of an “abortion.”

Opponents of the killing of the pre-born child in the womb collude with their adversaries in framing the issue in terms of one individual’s “right to life” versus another individual’s right to choose.”  To cast this issue in the terms of liberal individualism is, once again, to veil behind abstractions the concrete reality, a reality that is far more ominous and hideous than a matter of an abuse of “rights.”

The reality is that the act that some of us reject and that we misleadingly refer to as “abortion” is filicide, more specifically, maternal filicide.

When the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Constitution grants women the right to pursue an “abortion,” it announced to the world and to future generations that Americans endorse the right of mothers to kill their children. More specifically, Americans, the world now knows since Roe v. Wade was decided 46 years ago, celebrate as a sacred, constitutional prerogative the “freedom” of some 50 million mothers to kill their children.

This is what “abortion” entails. This is what renders it evil. And this is what makes it the scourge of all national scourges, the most disgraceful of all disgraces.

There remain far too many conservatives, especially Republican politicians and some of their media apologists, who repeatedly say that while they oppose “abortion,” they are willing to grant it in the cases of “rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is at stake.” Once, however, this talking point is translated in terms that are meant not to advance partisan political interests but, rather, to reflect reality, it shouldn’t be difficult to see that it is as logically as it is morally impoverished.

Translation: We “pro-lifers” oppose filicide, the killing by mothers of their children in their wombs, but this otherwise immoral act is morally permissible when these innocent children, uniquely dependent at this stage of human development upon their mothers, threaten their mothers’ physical well-being and/or have fathers who are rapists or relatives of their mothers.

“Pro-lifers” undermine their position when they assign moral relevance to the circumstances in which the conception of a child occurs. If “abortion” is wrong, as its opponents claim, it is wrong because an innocent child is put to death. The circumstances in which that child came into being are as morally irrelevant to the worth of that child as are the circumstances in which any child comes into being morally irrelevant to their worth as human beings.

Suffice to say, given the scandalously sloppy thinking on the part of those who purport to be opposed to filicide in the womb, it is no wonder that “abortion” has managed to become as endemic as it is.

Photo Credit: Michael Thomas/Getty Images

America • Cultural Marxism • Hollywood • Post • Pro-Life • The Culture • the family

Let’s See If Netflix and Disney Really Mean It

Pity the poor actors and production companies that have discovered a need in conscience not to film in Georgia because of its new abortion restrictions. Presumably they won’t film in any state that restricts abortion—so not just Georgia, which has a burgeoning film industry because of tax incentives—but also Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Ohio, and Missouri, which have all recently passed “heartbeat laws.” And –no!—not Louisiana! No more filming in the French Quarter or on the bayou? This is sacrifice indeed.

Netflix voluntarily complies with Saudi and Iranian censorship, and accepts content filmed in Egypt, which bans abortion entirely. Disney has a theme park in China in spite of its gulag and other blatant human rights violations. So one wonders at this newfound studio squeamishness at complying with local laws. It seems only to be in America, against American citizens, that the Silicon Curtain descends to bully the local populace about what it may say and think, who it may read, and which laws it may enact. Perhaps it is merely democratic enactment by free people that is the objection?

No matter. The rights of conscience must be respected, so I look forward to the brave Hollywood boycott of the Cannes film festival next year (too late for 2019), since France bans abortion after 10 weeks.

And I expect there will be no more films set in the major European capitals, or on the Riviera, or in the Alps, or exotic Morocco, or most of South America, or anywhere in the Middle East or Africa. Most of the world restricts abortion after the first trimester. Even Sweden, with one of Europe’s most liberal abortion laws, bans abortion after 18 weeks.

If you will only film in places where abortion on demand for any reason for all nine months is permitted, you’re restricting the industry largely to the anglosphere: Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and certain parts of the United States and Australia. (What is this thing Anglo countries have for abortion do you suppose?) Sorry, actors of color who want more great parts and more diverse stories told: “on location” from now on means mostly New York, Los Angeles, London, Toronto, and  Sydney. And Beijing, of course—a welcome exception to the coming studio boycott of practically the whole non-Anglo world.

P.S. Abortion is legal only in the first trimester in Switzerland. Should anyone be going to Davos?

Photo credit:  Mario Tama/Getty Images

Democrats • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • Progressivism • The Culture • The Left

Abortion vs. Civilization

The recent push in Alabama to restrict most abortions has energized the culture war. But despite the seething passions on both sides, nothing has really changed.

Abortion has always been anti-family, always been about convenience, and always been evil.

What has changed is the candor of abortion extremists. The far Left’s recent embrace of late-term abortion on demand is as sign that the time for compromise and “dialogue” is rapidly fading.

Most people are still repulsed by overt infanticide—and most well-meaning liberals who aren’t so extreme probably do not realize what they are supporting when they acquiesce to a general “right to choose”—but the embrace of late-term abortion as a serious topic of discussion heralds a nation in decline.

The truth is that abortion is not just a “leftist” issue. It’s a gruesome convenience with which a broad swath of America has made peace.

A Cultural Shift
Abortion is popular. According to a Morning Consult poll, most Americans oppose Alabama’s new abortion law. A sizable chunk of Republicans—40 percent—either have no opinion or oppose the law, too.

By some estimates, nearly 50 percent of Republicans believe Roe v. Wade should remain the law of the land.

If the new abortion extremism is a sign of some cultural shift, it’s not that a large segment of the population suddenly supports infanticide. It’s that an even larger segment of the population, libertarians, soft conservatives, and the like, quietly tolerate abortion in the name of “small government.”

It would appear that America has largely accepted abortion as part of the nation’s liberal contract. Even so-called conservatives find themselves unable or unwilling to oppose abortion in the name of non-interference.

Some conservatives who say that they are passionately opposed to abortion will nevertheless withhold judgment and make allowances for it on the principle of separating private belief from public policy. A moral outrage is received with a libertarian shrug: it’s not my business to “legislate morality.”

The notion that government should not “legislate morality,” and instead allow evil and injustice to thrive—in the name of minding one’s business, like a good American—shows how deeply liberalism has degraded the social fabric.

The social apathy that attends widespread acceptance of abortion is part and parcel of the corrosion done by liberalism, and its evil twin, utilitarianism. All arguments for abortion boil down to these two principles: that the freedom of the individual should remain as unrestricted as possible by inconvenience; and that the Good of society should be measured by convenience and pleasure.

Matters of Convenience
Abortion has been widely accepted as a necessary trade-off to accommodate the freedom and convenience of the individual. The ascendance of a philosophy of moral libertarianism, and the decline of family and community, have coincided with the acceptance of industrial-scale butchery. The abortion state is a gruesome convenience that must continue in order for humans to enjoy their sexual and personal freedom without consequences.

A grim data set from Florida paints a portrait of what most “pro-lifers” have always suspected about abortion. According to the statistics, fewer than than 2 percent of abortions in Florida last year involved cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening danger to the mother. Nearly 98 percent were for no specific reason or poverty.

If this data set is representative, then abortion exists largely, if not primarily, for convenience, if not as a form of contraception outright.

Yet pro-abortionists focus on the extreme, implausible cases of pregnancy through rape or incest in order to justify the rule. All that the extremists’ candor has done is clarify what abortion was really always about.  

Some children are born under the right circumstances. Others are “mistakes.” The child is always a hypothetical hindrance; the only tangible considerations are the desires, plans, and convenience of the those who contemplate killing it.

While abortion is often presented as the sole domain of women, the convenience of abortion knows no sex. It often gets lost amid the cliches of the debate that abortion is immensely liberating for men, too. Every man who supports a “woman’s choice” is, however secretly, supporting his right to evade the responsibility of becoming a father whenever he doesn’t feel like it.  

Abortion is, and always was, fundamentally about convenience. But the mind has clever ways of making selfishness look like altruism. To justify the violence necessary to accommodate the restlessly free individual, liberals look to a demonic, utilitarian arithmetic soaked in fatalism.

Pro-abortionists always assume that children born into challenging circumstances are without hope before their lives have even begun. The idea that it’s more cruel to bring a child into the world at the “wrong” time or under difficult circumstances, rather than simply killing it outright, is cynical nonsense.

But this is exactly how abortion is always ethically calculated: people are imagined as factors in a giant pleasure calculator rather than as ends in themselves. Their value and worth are measured relative to the convenience of the whole.

Abortion is thus justified as a compassionate release from pain for all involved. Individuals who are burdensome to the convenience machine are projected as having little chance of thriving in it, and only posing a hindrance to those with the luck to have survived the moment of birth.

A Barbarous Sacrament
Abortion serves the convenience of the individual in the bloodiest conceivable way, but those individuals are themselves denied essential value. They become part of an inhuman aggregate,  a civilization that has given up its humanity for pleasure.

The world envisioned as the liberal ideal, with abortion as its sacrament, is barbarous. There is no more society; instead there is a loosely connected mesh of individuals abstracted into a monstrous, libidinal organism. Individuals no longer exist within a web of meaning and social bonds; stripped of their dignity, severed from social ties and obligations, they are like isolated cells within a pulsing, hyper-stimulated dendrite.

Consumption and convenience are the guiding principles of this debased thing; life has no worth that is inconvenient. Anything that stands in the way of personal choice must be consumed, even innocent lives. Humans are mere fungible flesh, disposable according to their addition or subtraction from the convenience of the monster.

Civilization is reduced to a debased and dysfunctional state. With convenience and individual choice taking precedence over all else, the things that make society civilized are discarded. There are no hard and fast moral truths; ambiguity and arbitrariness rule. Morality, family, and community are dissolved in a libidinal acid bath. There are no consequences, no right and wrong, only the craving of the present moment.

This is a monstrous vision of humanity, but it is liberalism’s ideal. Liberalism can brook no limitations on the individual will. Abortion is core to liberalism and its ideal of a “liberated” humanity.

Abortion at any time, for any reason was an inevitable development given liberalism’s advance.

Abortion is necessary for the liberation of the individual, male or female, from the burdens that would hinder the personal quest. Abortion is about a woman’s choice, but more broadly it gives humans the choice to opt out of forming families, to retreat from responsibility for their neighbors and wider society.

Run-Away Individualism
Every form of liberation requires the destruction of whatever tethers and bonds are limiting one’s freedom. Abortion replaces the most intimate bonds of all with the restless individual will.

Family and community are replaced by individualism, materialism and careerism as the new ideal. A child conceived at the wrong time may frustrate the plans of those who did not “plan” for the child, so the child is disposable. Social responsibility is replaced with personal caprice.

With abortion, there is always a possibility to erase one’s “mistakes,” however grave. One’s freedom is curtailed as little as possible by things that, and people who weren’t “planned.”

If people cannot be expected not to kill their offspring, then virtually no social responsibility can be expected of them at all. But this retreat from social responsibility is not just the province of the Left; it is the consequence of a widely shared liberal tradition.

The “live and let live” mentality is a strong American instinct that is shared by “both sides.” The radicalization of abortion laws either way shows a certain divergence, but abortion has still very much been accepted by a large part of the population as the American way.

To counteract this will require a return to a more encompassing politics than the laissez-faire mentality which animates the thinking of libertarians who imagine restrictive abortion laws as an infringement on the hallowed principle of small-government.

It will require recognizing that right and wrong are binding and universal, not circumstantial and up to the individual; that society is more than individuals minding their own business in isolation; that politics is about justice, and that laws that sanction evil are lawlessness; that upholding standards is necessary for civilized society; that withholding judgment from evil in the name of “small government” is not a virtue; that abortion barbarizes humanity and destroys the things that make civilization possible; that true liberty is not freedom from consequences or the necessity of worrying about one’s neighbor. Above all it recognizes that the purpose of civilization is living a virtuous and happy life.

The popularity of abortion signals a nation and culture in steep decline. A change in course will require rejecting run-away individualism for the things that really matter.

Photo Credit: Emily Kask/AFP/Getty Images

America • Center for American Greatness • Conservatives • Post • Pro-Life

God Bless Alabama

Each one of the more than 50 million abortions committed in the United States since the Supreme Court’s abysmal decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) has destroyed a unique human being. Your brother or sister, a potential spouse or best friend—every one of them was sacrificed for profit and pleasure. Those tiny human persons were, as the Declaration of Independence recognizes, “created equal” and endowed—just like you or me—with the inalienable right to life.

In other words, human beings, no matter how small, have the right to life simply because they are human. Period. This isn’t difficult, but people have all sorts of reasons to rationalize their sins.

We saw this 150 years ago, when a powerful faction vehemently insisted that a certain class of human beings didn’t have the same inalienable right to liberty as others do because of the color of their skin. They propped up and expanded a deeply unjust system of domination because it redounded to their private (economic) advantage.

Today, some crusade just as stridently to deny to others the most basic right of all, the right to life, because it benefits them. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, out of a sense of expediency or because of genuine conviction, many of our fellow Americans are fighting tooth and nail to prevent us from smashing to bits a nationwide mill of human death.

To have denied liberty to some was immoral then, and it’s immoral now to deny to some the right to life.

For decades, the pro-life movement has taken an incrementalist approach to achieve its goal of outlawing abortion, opting for mere peripheral attacks on the core holdings of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)—which together teach that women have a constitutional “right” to abort their unborn children, a “right” that’s hidden somewhere, we’re told, in the 14th Amendment. (Did you know pigs can fly, too?)

The movement’s modus operandi up to now has been tepid at best: some hospital admitting privileges requirements here, other “health and safety” standards there, maybe a waiting period, too. And if lawmakers were feeling really bold, they’d make women wait 72 hours—rather than a mere 24—before they could contract with a hitman to kill their tiny, defenseless child.

What bravery!

This was an understandable posture given the composition of the Supreme Court pre-2018, before Brett Kavanaugh was elevated to replace the now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. But it’s important to be clear: Such legislative tinkering was not and never could be a true solution to a deeply rooted culture of death because it wasn’t a fundamental, root-and-branch, burn-it-down-and-salt-the-earth challenge to a deeply wicked system powered by a vision of human inequality.

Children have been slaughtered by the thousands on a daily basis, and for the past 40-odd years, the apex of legislative courage has been to accept as legitimate what are in reality ridiculous pro-abortion euphemisms like “reproductive rights” and “abortion is healthcare”—and then to require that Planned Parenthood death chambers’hallways be wide enough to accommodate a gurney.

Like fools, we’ve thrown tiny pebbles at Moloch and declared victory.

No more.

The pro-life movement has rightly decided that now’s the time to play for keeps. It’s been emboldened both by the most conservative Supreme Court in more than 80 years and the Trump Administration’s solid commitment to life—not to mention revolted by the ghoulish, rabidly pro-abortion legislation churned out by states like New York and Virginia, all in the Orwellian name of “women’s rights.”

It’s begun, at last, to take seriously the idea that no unborn child should be murdered in cold blood for no reason other than that their mothers don’t want them, backing up its belief in radical human moral equality with the force of law.

Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, Kentucky, and Missouri have all recently passed heartbeat bills, and Arkansas and Utah now ban abortion after 18 weeks (Iowa’s similar law was struck down by one of its state courts).

But Alabama has shown the most courage, and God bless ’em. On May 15, the legislature passed and Governor Kate Ivey signed the “Alabama Human Life Protection Act,” a law that makes it a felony to commit an abortion or attempt to do so from the moment of conception; abortionists who successfully execute an unborn child face 99 years in prison, and attempts carry a 10-year penalty. There are no exceptions for rape or incest—but the law does have exemptions “to avoid a serious health risk to the [. . .] mother,” if the “unborn child has a lethal anomaly,” and if the woman has an ectopic pregnancy.

No more beating around the bush. No more defensive crouch. No more empty words.

Folks, this isn’t your parents’ pro-life movement, and we aren’t in Kansas anymore, either. Thank God.

Alabama teaches us how to take the Declaration and the Constitution seriously. The political branches were guided by natural law principles regarding human life and self-government, which is why they, not the courts, acted to rectify an injustice of mind-boggling scale—the legislature found that the number of children killed by abortions in the United States since 1973 was “more than three times the number who were killed in German death camps, Chinese purges, Stalin’s gulags, Cambodian killing fields, and the Rwandan genocide combined.”

Contrast that with what happened in Kansas a few weeks ago. There, the state supreme court, in an historically illiterate and philosophically sophomoric 6-1 opinion, held that section one of the Kansas Constitution protects a woman’s “right” to obtain an abortion throughout her entire pregnancy.

In Kansas, both the Declaration and Constitution were trampled underfoot: A handful of hubristic lawyers decided to give us Roe redux and play-act philosopher kings, continuing a long tradition of judicial supremacy that stems all the way back to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).

Kansas is what America looks like when its philosophical and constitutional traditions and practices are spurned and despised. Alabama, conversely, is what America looks like when our founding is taken seriously.

I know where I want to live, and which state I want America to resemble. Godspeed, Alabama.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Podcast • Pro-Life

Will Heartbeat Bills Like Alabama’s End Roe v. Wade?

More states are moving pro-life legislation like Alabama’s while others are copying New York’s radical pro-abortion law. This might lead to the end of Roe v. Wade and send abortion back to the states. Also, Mitt Romney votes against constitutionalist federal judge to get back at Trump. Join American Greatness publisher Chris Buskirk below as he takes a deep dive into the issues.
Photo Credit: Julie Bennett/Getty Images
America • civic culture/friendship • Conservatives • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • Religion and Society • The Culture • the family

‘Unplanned’ and the Effective Arsenal of Life

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

One thing you can say about “Unplanned” is that it is ambitious. The film tops “Gosnell” in forcing the audience to confront the true nature of a legal abortion in a sanctioned clinic.

Even given the advanced medical equipment and sterile conditions, the true nature of an abortion horrifies. But that isn’t the point of the movie.

Although it’s hard to imagine anyone short of a hardcore zealot making it through the entire film with his pro-choice beliefs intact, the intended audience of “Unplanned” does not appear to be the pro-choice crowd. The movie seems more to be directed at turning existing pro-life opinion into effective action.

The film’s critical scene depicts the contrast between two kinds of pro-life responses. On one side are grandstanding protesters screaming at women as they walk into a clinic. As the demonstrators bombard these pregnant women with accusations of promiscuity and murder, this moves moves the sympathy needle toward the volunteers protecting their patients as they scurry into the clinic.

A contrasting group of protesters employ the tools Jesus taught: Love, forgiveness, understanding, and prayer. They calmly entreat the abortion-seeking women just to talk to them, tell them their story. They offer help through counseling and adoption services. They offer understanding and forgiveness to women who have made mistakes but who can still be reached through the healing redemption of divine forgiveness.

The movie retells the story of a former director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic named Abby Johnson. As the plot unfolds, Abby begins to interact with the gentler protesters. They learn each other’s names and the protesters inexplicably offer her smiles and encouragement, even congratulating her on a promotion. At one point, Abby lashes out at them with a political speech about reproductive rights. Abby is shocked to learn that the protesters have an intellectual argument, not just a faith-based one, that leaves her speechless.

Little by little, the people in Abby’s environment encourage her to take a different path. Abby resists, seeing them as misguided. She feels irrevocably committed to the abortion rights cause because of her personal history with abortion. Her husband, an earnest pro-lifer, swallows his personal distaste for her chosen career and nevertheless showers her with love and support.  

As Abby rises through the Planned Parenthood hierarchy, she begins to realize that some of her assumptions about the morality of Planned Parenthood’s work just aren’t true. The core focus of Planned Parenthood is not birth control or prenatal counseling. The money that pays her salary comes from abortion and she’s trained to sell abortions as a product. Planned Parenthood purposely expands operations to accommodate later and later abortions beyond Abby’s red line of fetal viability.

She also learns that the clinic is actually an assembly line or, rather, a disassembly line for abortion. When one patient has complications due to the negligence of the performing doctor, Abby is forbidden from calling an ambulance to aid the woman because it might open up the clinic to public criticism.

Early on, Abby delivers her sales pitch to reluctant customers, reassuring them that the fetus growing inside of them is incapable of feeling pain. But when she’s forced to watch a procedure on a sonogram, she realizes this is a lie. The unborn baby clearly reacts in pain and attempts to flee the vacuum hose. “They all do that,” the performing doctor quips in response to her shock.

When Abby does switch sides, Planned Parenthood sends an army of lawyers to silence her.  Abby successfully defeated these efforts in court with the help of a plucky attorney’s pro bono work. Abby’s experience calls to mind the use of a prosecutor to retaliate against Project Veritas when it recorded a video of Planned Parenthood openly discussing selling the remains of aborted fetuses. While it is a felony to sell human tissue, that’s not the crime that got prosecuted. Instead a pro-abortion prosecutor exacted vengeance on behalf of Planned Parenthood to deter future abortion-rights dissenters from exposing the ghoulish trade to public scrutiny.

While watching “Unplanned,” tears of impotent rage wet the viewer’s cheeks. But the story of “Unplanned” demonstrates clearly that the monstrousness of abortion cannot be conquered with anger or violence. The key success of the pro-life group depicted in the movie is to offer the women in crisis a choice. The abortion industry thrives on women motivated by shame and fear over their pregnancies. Offer forgiveness and support to those women and you take away Planned Parenthood’s most powerful marketing device.

At the end of the movie, the creators display a written message with instructions to abortion workers about how to get assistance if they decide to quit their jobs. The pro-life activists promise help with job placement and support. And yes, prayers do work. Near the end, when Abby joins the protesters, one of them expresses doubt that all of their prayers end up doing anything. Abby gives them a priceless insight: When potential patients saw people praying outside the clinic, the no-show rates would skyrocket.

For a pro-life activist awakened to abortion’s gruesome nature, it must feel impossible to show love and forgiveness towards the abortion practitioners and the women who hire them. Yet, if you are called to take action against abortion, this is what “Unplanned” challenges you to do. The awakening of Abby Johnson is an invaluable victory for the pro-life cause and the story of “Unplanned” is a study of the tools proven effective to replicate this victory. Prayer and love worked on Abby and they remain the most effective weapon in the arsenal of life.

Big Media • Center for American Greatness • Cultural Marxism • feminists • Hollywood • Post • Pro-Life • The Culture • The Left • The Media

Normalizing the Unthinkable

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

A few weeks ago, a new television series called “Shrill” premiered on Hulu. Based on a memoir of the same title by avowed feminist and “fat activist” Lindy West, the show stars Aidy Bryant of “Saturday Night Live” and is produced by Elizabeth Banks.

I wasn’t going to watch the show. Since coming to understand the way pop culture is designed mainly to destroy actual culture, my tolerance for all of it—music, TV, movies—has seriously declined. I find it difficult to be entertained by things that I know are designed to hurt me. Some things cannot be unseen. But when Justin Caruso at Breitbart wrote last week about how the show’s pilot episode (which is supposed to be a comedy) features the main character getting an abortion, I decided to grit my teeth and witness what appeared to be a watershed moment in television history.

If we are to understand how degeneracy is memed into reality by Hollywood, we must understand the narrative devices that writers and directors employ to get the audience on the side of he or she who will eventually do evil.

Building a Bond of Pathos
To the tune of some very Portland-y indie pop, the show opens with a glimpse into the day-to-day life of the main character, Annie. It’s morning. Annie has just returned home from walking her dog and goes to get dressed for the day. She’s overweight. Looking in the mirror, her sweater appears too tight, so she bends down to stretch it with her knees. She goes for her breakfast, which looks like (and looks like it tastes like) alien food, from a package labeled “Thin Menu.” This opening scene sets the tone of the show. Poppy music presents the mundane as endearing. The mix of sweetness and vulnerability pulls the viewer in.

When she arrives at the local coffee shop, Annie sees a cheesy flyer for fitness classes (“Get Toned with Tonya,” it says) tacked to the ad board. Giggling that “Tonya” is pictured kicking a slice of pizza, she takes a picture. Surprisingly, the subject of the flyer actually happens to be there. Tonya approaches Annie, smiling, and offers her her number. As Annie takes the piece of paper, Tonya takes Annie’s wrist and comments, “Wow. You’re wrists are so tiny. You actually have a really small frame,” and then in the most demonic example of foreshadowing I have ever seen, “There is a small person inside of you dying to get out.”

Playing off the awkward encounter, Annie makes a few jokes, which causes some other patrons to tell her that she reminds them of Rosie O’Donnell. She laughs along and thanks them for the non-compliment, but the moment she turns away to leave, the audience can see her mask slip. The defeat and frustration in her eyes is hard felt. Annie seems nice enough, just trying to “live her life” as they say, but a source of deep insecurity for her has just been publicly prodded, both intentionally and unintentionally. It’s a painful moment for Annie and for the audience, who having been invited into the story are now living vicariously through the protagonist.

Annie goes to work. Her boss is a jerk who takes none of her ideas seriously. He won’t let her write the stories she wants to write. She struggles to articulate her desires and he does not take her seriously enough to have patience. More pain.

Then Annie gets a text from someone named Ryan. It says, simply, “Fuck?” So she goes to this guy’s house and the two have perfunctory sex in his dirty apartment. She asks if he would get dinner with her that night. He can’t because he’s “working on a podcast.” Playing off the rejection again, she jokes that he should kill his boss and his entire family. He doesn’t get the joke, and in another extremely creepy moment of ironic foreshadowing, responds, “That’s fucked up. His wife just had a baby.” Ryan makes her leave through the back door, which requires that she hop (and fall over) a fence to exit the backyard. Another painful moment.

All of this rising action sets up a bond of pathos between the audience and Annie. Her character is sweet but flawed in a self-destructive kind of way, which makes her pathetic and endearing. She wants what the audience wants: to be accepted, admired, cherished, needed, and loved. In every effort to fulfill these most basic needs, she fails, generating an increasing level of empathy from the audience who, by the third scene, is rooting for her.

It doesn’t matter that the audience may or may not have experienced in their waking life exactly what Annie experienced in the aforementioned vignettes. Having all at some point felt the sting of rejection, of unrequited desire, or of self-deprecation—this much is sufficient. Annie’s experience is meant to reflect that of the audience, not in form but in substance, and that’s what matters. It doesn’t matter that everyone knows that the reality presented in the television show is in fact simulated. We suspend disbelief, allowing ourselves to be emotionally affected because that is the natural role and function of an audience.

Thus the main character is the lens through which the audience will experience this fictional reality, like a surrogate. The audience and Annie are not simply on the same team; they are effectively, if only for a moment and if only in the mind, the same person. Initially, we see that she wants what we want, and as we settle into our symbiotic experience with her, we come to want what she wants.

Fleeting Moments of Lucidity
Annie learns she is pregnant, which shocks her because she’d been taking emergency contraceptives every time she and Ryan had sex. He preferred it unprotected and she “didn’t want him to stop liking me, so I just went with it.”  The first person she tells about the pregnancy (her fat black lesbian roommate who “doesn’t apologize to white people”) reacts insouciantly: “Get an abortion before it becomes illegal or something.”

Before finalizing the decision, Annie has a moment of lucidity about the situation. She expresses to her roommate her deep fears about motherhood—and the prospect that it won’t be available to her because of the challenges that her weight, her greatest insecurity, pose: “I keep having this little thought of like, this is my chance to be a mom. There have been moments in my life where I didn’t think that I would ever get to have that because of what I looked like or because there is a certain way your body is supposed to be and I’m not that. And that maybe if I was just sweet enough and nice enough and easygoing enough with any guy that would be enough for someone.”

Instead of listening to her expressions of genuine fear, the roommate brushes them off entirely. She, in all her intersectional omnipotence, assures Annie that this won’t be her only chance to be a mother. She insists that Annie should not carry the child—and she does use the word “child”—of Ryan the loser.

Annie then visits her parents. Her mother asks her how her diet is going. Her father has cancer. She doesn’t tell them anything about the baby. But as her visit comes to a close, she takes a moment to look at pictures of herself that her parents fixed on the wall. She is reminded of the happy innocence she once had as a child—something she has lost along the way.

And then, sickeningly, the show cuts to the abortion clinic. Her roommate is there to “support” her. And of course, the director ensured there is a mother holding her toddler in the background of the waiting room scene.

“Empowerment” or Evil?
We come to the moment when the abortion takes place. She lies on her back, and the camera is angled directly downward toward her face, a bird’s eye view. God’s eye view. With extremely sterile language, the doctor guides Annie through the procedure. “You might feel some light cramping. You might also feel some numbing.”

I can’t get much further into the scene without feeling actually nauseous. She is killing her child. The child she just expressed at least a modicum of desire to raise. The next morning, she discusses the situation with her roommate. Upon reflection, Annie has realized that the little girl she saw in the picture at her parents’ house needed to be resurrected: “Little me was so happy and fat and had big, dumb dreams. And I got myself into this mess . . . but I made a decision, only for me, and I got myself out of it. I feel very fucking powerful right now.”

Knowing that their exceedingly relatable characters act as a proxy for the viewer, the creators of these kinds of shows force the audience into moral quandaries that should, in fact, never be a question. Creators have the immense power to guide the rationalization of immorality in the minds of the audience, through the created character, by bringing the story to a moral gray zone. Inevitably, gray leads to black.

The abortion is the climax and turning point in Annie’s character arc. Afterward, she stands up for herself to the fitness girl at the coffee shop, to her boss, and to the father of the child she murdered. She finds herself. The outro song goes, “don’t worry about me, I’m doing good, I’m doing great . . .”

Effectively, the main idea of this episode is that the protagonist sacrifices a child to obtain or reclaim the energy of her own inner-child. The symbolism is easy to miss, but it cannot be ignored. It is sick and twisted and evil—but it was delivered in the form of a sugar-coated poison pill. The unthinking audience swallows whatever appears in the trough. Before you blink, a generation of women believes that infanticide is empowering.

This is about normalizing the unthinkable. It is a total inversion of poetic justice, wherein the outcomes of the story reward vice and punish virtue. But our sense of poetic justice is closely tied to our waking notions of justice. This is how public virtue is perverted. Hollywood has infected hearts and minds by concealing a philosophy of death in an aesthetic of pathos.

“Shrill’s” positive depiction of abortion is part of a growing number of television shows and movies determined to normalize the unthinkable. Indeed, depictions of abortion on TV are becoming increasingly callous and casual. Beginning in 2011, Shonda Rhimes’ “Grey’s Anatomy” shocked viewers when one of its main characters aborted her child against the initial wishes of the child’s father. In the fifth season of another popular Rhimes show, “Scandal,” the main character Olivia Pope willfully engages in the procedure to kill her own child to the tune of “Silent Night.” The symbolism, again, is utterly satanic and, no, I don’t think that’s an overstatement.

Human beings require the sublime. What we have in pop culture today is sin disguised as the sublime. Trash exalted as treasure. Little by little, the souls of consumers have been worn down by the content of pop culture. Moment by moment, the unthinkable is becoming the norm. “Shrill” is but a drop in the ocean of democratized degeneracy. The battle for hearts and minds rages on.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Hulu

Democrats • Post • Pro-Life • Progressivism • The Left

Beto O’Rourke: Late-term Abortions Are ‘About Women Making Their Own Decisions About Their Own Body’

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Beto O’Rourke has refused to rule out abortions more than six months into a pregnancy.

Asked by the Washington Examiner about his stance on third-trimester abortions, O’Rourke, who’s battling with a crowded field of Democrats vying for the chance to unseat President Trump in 2020, said it is a woman’s decision, in consultation with her doctor.

“Listen, I think those decisions are best left to a woman and her doctor,” he said. “I know better than to assume anything about a woman’s decision, an incredibly difficult decision, when it comes to her reproductive rights.”

He added: “Roe v. Wade, though it is being tested unlike any other time, is still the law of the land. It must be upheld, and we must ensure that when we are talking about universal health care, we are also talking about women’s health care. And when we are talking about women’s health care, we are talking about women making their own decisions about their own body.”

O’Rourke was being asked to clarify comments he made in Cleveland the night before in response to a woman asking him whether he supports third-trimester abortions. The woman noted that in those cases, the fetus might be viable outside of the womb, and if there were an emergency, doctors could perform a cesarean section.

He answered the woman’s question quickly, not addressing the root of the inquiry but simply saying that he supports a woman’s right to an abortion.

He told her: “So, the question is about abortion and reproductive rights. And my answer to you is that should be a decision that the woman makes. I trust her.”

While 6 in 10 Americans broadly support abortion rights for the first trimester, a Gallup poll from last June said that number drops to 13 percent in the final three months of a pregnancy.

O’Rourke, 46, a former Texas congressman who announced his presidential run March 14, said it was important to visit Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio right out of the gate, an implicit criticism of defeated 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who neglected the Rust Belt and lost all four states.

“The places that I visited are really important to me. I want to make sure that we are not writing anyone off, and just as importantly, I want to make sure we are not taking anyone for granted,” he said. “When we don’t show up, we get what we deserve. When we don’t show up, we fail to learn from those we fail to serve.”

Clinton was widely panned for ignoring Wisconsin and Michigan until the end of the campaign.

“If we have any hope of winning, and if we have any prospect of delivering, we have to first show up with the humility of acknowledging that,” O’Rourke said as he walked along Pollock Road with 20 members of the Penn State College Democrats.

O’Rourke spent a half-hour with the student activists at the Nittany Lion statue, taking questions about college tuition and taking photos with the group.

Donning a white Penn State hat, O’Rourke even learned the finer details of the iconic “We are … Penn State!” chant that typically echoes out of Beaver Stadium during football season.

O’Rourke represented El Paso, Texas, for six years in the House before challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Cruz for his Senate seat in 2018. Despite the long odds—the last Democrat to win a U.S. Senate seat in Texas was Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, when he won re-election for a fourth term—he made it a race, coming within 2.6 percentage points of Cruz.

Of the candidates who have announced or are considering a run, O’Rourke is the youngest. On March 18, he announced that his campaign brought in $6.1 million in the first 24 hours, outraising everyone in the field, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who hit $6 million in his first 24 hours.

He broke the fundraising record books last year in Texas, raising over $80 million, more than twice as much as Cruz did.

Charlie Gerow, a Pennsylvania-based Republican media consultant, said O’Rourke was less quixotic than his Democratic critics claim and his Republican rivals wish he was. Gerow said, “Look, he is charismatic in a presidential field vying to show their presidential timber.”

O’Rourke was smart to bookend Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania between the traditional early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, Gerow said: “The Rust Belt is going to determine who the next president is and this is ground zero. Right now he is the talk of the town and he has pushed the other Democrats off the front page.”

But he added that the only candidate to ever knock everyone off the front pages and stay there for four years is Trump: “Whether O’Rourke can go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump is another story.”

Photo Credit: Ethan Miller/Getty Images


America • Democrats • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • Republicans • Satire • The Culture • The Left

44 Men and Women . . . and a Baby

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

[fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_ rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” ]

In the 1987 movie, “Three Men and a Baby,” three carefree bachelors who find a baby on their doorstep don’t hesitate to give that baby the care it needs to thrive.

But today, what happens when 44 men and women are asked to declare that a newborn baby—found not on a doorstep, but delivered “accidentally” in a medical facility after a failed abortion attempt—must be given the necessary care from a healthcare practitioner? The 44 men and women—all of them Democrats in the U.S. Senate—refused to make this declaration, and essentially authorized healthcare practitioners to withhold basic care from newborns until the babies die of neglect.

The bachelors of “Three Men and a Baby” knew that the first order of business was to take care of the child. If ever there was an OMG moment, this was it. When it came to baby-caring procedures, these guys were clueless. Nevertheless, it was a no-brainer. What choice did they have? They could not just let the baby die of neglect.

But 44 Senate Democrats, including every senator now declared to be running for president, refused to vote for a bill that would have required “health care practitioners” to provide a living and breathing newborn with “the proper degree of care.”

OMG indeed! Who wouldn’t vote for this? It ought to have been a no-brainer even for clueless Senate Democrats. A health care practitioner has no other choice but to care for the baby. Well, there is one other choice. It’s the “I-word.” By rejecting basic human decency, these 44 senators voted to sanction infanticide in cases where abortion was intended.

First, they came for the babies. Those “certain” unalienable rights—including, above all, life—don’t seem so certain anymore.

With their 44 votes, “progressive” Democrats have made a sharp U-turn all the way back to the child sacrifice rituals of the Aztecs. Those barbarians sacrificed their babies to beseech the gods. Democrats, and fellow-traveling socialists, sacrifice babies to appease their fanatic base—and to follow the money. As one of their up-and-coming luminaries stated in another context, “It’s all about the Benjamins” that flow between the likes of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the campaign coffers of these Senate Democrats.

After the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” debacle, is there anything about which Americans still can agree? Sure. There’s always “baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.”

This enduring catchphrase—intended to unload lots of Chevys—actually conveys an important message. It helps us all come together around things that are quintessentially American. Julie Andrews, as the Austrian Maria von Trapp, sang about raindrops on roses and schnitzel with noodles. But baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet . . . these are a few of our favorite things.

Now would be a propitious time for the Senate to enact the “Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet Act.” But how would the Senate 44 react to a bill that states very simply: “America loves Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet?”

Typically, this type of feel-good bill is passed unanimously on a voice vote. So it should be no problem to get these Senators to sign on to it. Certainly, the sentiment is without controversy.

Well, maybe just a little controversy here and there.

Singling out baseball would not be prudent for the many Senators whose states have football and basketball teams. It just wouldn’t be a good look for a party that’s all-in on “inclusion.”

No telling what voting Yea on this bill would do to Kamala Harris’s chances. Undoubtedly, she fears offending Rams and Lakers fans? Amy Klobuchar’s support for this bill would, most likely, send thousands of frantic Vikings and Timberwolves supporters to safe spaces. With Vermont having no professional teams, Bernie Sanders would have no dog in this fight, but he’d vote against the bill anyway, calling it an affront to soccer, to which he took a strong liking years ago when honeymooning in the Soviet Union.

And then there’s the little matter of the “National Anthem.” It’s an integral part of every baseball game. How would it look if these Democrats indicated support for a pastime that urges all those in attendance to stand and salute the flag? Their base would erupt, and they’d have to contend with all those fatuous Colin Kaepernick tweets.

OK, a modified bill stating “America loves Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet” would be just fine.

Actually, there are serious issues with hot dogs. Too many nitrates, let’s face it. And of course, there’s the obvious slight to hamburgers and pizza. Much more egregious is how this bill displays a stunning culinary insensitivity to other forms of cuisine developed without the benefit of white privilege.

And vegans. Let’s not forget about this important Democratic Party constituency. Vegans would be horrified. To them, this bill would be a constant reminder of the ongoing slaughter of cows and pigs.

Realizing that a shout-out to hot dogs would increase the demand for cows and pigs, AOC types would be apoplectic. All those emissions! Leaves a bad taste when it comes to implementing Green New Deal policies.

So that leaves “America loves Apple Pie and Chevrolet.” Not too shabby.

Except that apple pie is loaded with gluten, which has fallen into disfavor among yet another vital Democratic constituency. For these gluten-free enthusiasts, hearing Democrats advocate for apple pie would, no doubt, get their bowels in an uproar.

To make matters worse, many people add a scoop of ice cream to apple pie, something that the lactose intolerant couldn’t tolerate. It would be unseemly for Democrats to ignore their plight. Only Bernie Sanders could support the bill, but it would have to include a Ben and Jerry mandate, designating Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, produced in Vermont, as the only ice cream in America that could be eaten with apple pie.

You can’t always get what you want. “America loves Chevrolet” would still be a laudable effort.

I know what you’re thinking. It wouldn’t be fair. But there is a definite precedent for promoting one auto manufacturer over another, and specifically Chevrolet.

It wasn’t that many years ago when President Obama was singing the praises of Chevrolet for producing the Volt, an electric vehicle. “When I’m not president anymore, I’ll buy one and drive it myself.”

Let’s hope that in the last couple of years, Obama got around to buying a Volt. If not, it’s too late. Chevrolet recently discontinued the model, because no one, other than Obama, was interested in buying one. It turns out that the majority of Chevrolet’s sales and profits come from gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. What are the chances of getting Democrat votes for this climate change-inducing entity?

Unfortunately, it’s clear that this bill will join the protecting-baby bill, and die in the Senate. Perhaps that’s fitting. After all, Democrats have proven that death becomes them.

To avoid being tagged with the “Death Lover” moniker, expect Democrats to rush out a bill, showing their deep allegiance to America. All 47 senators who caucus with the Democrats would proudly hail a bill proclaiming “America loves . . . something.”

As the hordes of Democratic presidential candidates begin to campaign, you might be tempted—if you’re partial to carnival freak shows—to drop by a campaign event. If you go, don’t expect hot dogs or apple pie. So it’s best to BYO.

And if you’re pregnant, and your baby’s due date is approaching—stay home!

Photo credit: iStock/Getty Images

Center for American Greatness • Congress • Democrats • Post • Pro-Life • Republicans

Getting the Party of Infanticide on the Record

Democrats have always been the party of abortion. For a while, the mantra was “safe, legal and rare.” But in the era of the progressive Left, they have turned that slogan on its head. As of last Monday, Senate Democrats have confirmed that their party is now for unrestricted, unregulated, and unlimited abortion.

Last week, 44 Senate Democrats voted against legislation that would have required doctors to give the same care to infants who survived abortion procedures as they would give to any other infant. So radical is this new Democratic Party that 44 of them in the “world’s greatest deliberative body” would not even consider protecting a baby who, far from being in utero, has kicked and screamed its way into the world.

Rather, they hid behind unsubstantiated claims that allowing unwanted infants to die after birth somehow constitutes a form of women’s health care. A complicit media allowed them to get away with this overt lie, never challenging the fact that women’s health care has nothing to do with living, breathing, fully delivered babies.

Moreover, nothing in the bill would limit access to abortion or regulates its methods. It doesn’t mandate particular types of care for infants and leaves the medical specifics to the judgment of the physician. And the bill expressly limits prosecutions of women involved in the failed abortion attempt.

It also has nothing to do with “late-term abortions being incredibly rare,” another charge Democrats tried to hide behind. First, late-term abortions aren’t really so rare—there were more than 5,000 of them in 2018. Second, mothers do not seek them for problems of fetal abnormality or their own health. And, again, because it can’t be underscored enough, the protections considered by the Senate applied solely to babies who are born.

In 2017, 11 infants were born alive in Florida following an abortion. In Arizona, 10, and in Minnesota, three. The abortionist Kermit Gosnell is currently serving three life sentences in Pennsylvania for the first-degree murder of three infants born alive after failed abortion attempts (as well as involuntary manslaughter for the death of a mother undergoing an abortion in his Philadelphia clinic).

The comments of Virginia’s Democrat Governor Ralph Northam are what triggered this Senate vote. Northam accidentally told the truth about abortion, and his words illuminate exactly what the progressive left is willing to abide, and even champion:

If a mother is in labor . . . the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and mother.

As former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint put it in a call for Northam’s resignation, “[Northam] didn’t pretend it was about the health of the mother. He didn’t call the child a ‘fetus,’ he said ‘infant’ because he knows they are fully human. He just doesn’t care.”

As it turns out, neither do Senate Democrats.

By the way, Ralph Northam remains in office. He has attempted to clarify his comments after they sparked a national revulsion, but he has not retracted them.

The State of the Pro-Life Movement
I’ve written before about the listless state of the pro-life movement on Capitol Hill, a sentiment summarized by the fact that, in two years of unified GOP control of the government, congressional Republicans couldn’t manage a single vote to defund Planned Parenthood.

But the sheer horror of Northam’s comments mercifully has injected some new energy. Through the efforts of pro-life advocacy groups and Republican senators, notably Ben Sasse of Nebraska, the issue was not allowed to fade into obscurity. (As it has in the past—most recently in 2015, when videos surfaced of Planned Parenthood employees trafficking in baby parts. Conservatives agitated for a vote to defund the organization. They were told to be satisfied with a few hearings, which resulted in no action.)

Rather, the unified energies of Republican senators culminated with a vote on the Senate floor—an increasingly difficult outcome to achieve in this locked-down Senate. Their efforts should be applauded.

But even more important is where the pro-life movement goes from here. We’ve learned some important lessons.

First, we know these issues shake the earth. A Marist poll taken shortly after Northam’s comments were released showed a massive and unprecedented 17-point shift in voters who previously identified themselves as “pro-choice,” shifting their designation to pro-life. That is a remarkable swing in a historically stable identification demographic, one that can undoubtedly be linked to exposing the grotesque details about what an abortion actually is.

These issues may not vex Republicans in Congress as much as they used to, but they set the grassroots on fire. From a purely political standpoint, forcing Democrats to own the reality of their pro-abortion, pro-infanticide positions plays well for the GOP.

The Senate easily could take more votes on the more horrific aspects of abortion—trafficking in aborted baby parts, parental consent for minors, or using aborted babies for research. Even conscience protections for medical providers is a common-sense vote which draws a bright line between freedom of belief, and those who prize abortion so much they think it should be compelled.

But, to do this requires the GOP leadership to treat these issues seriously. While the Born Alive vote was a significant accomplishment, it was not given the treatment afforded to priority issues in the Senate. It was scheduled on a Monday evening, as senators were returning to Washington. Monday night votes are well-known as “bed-check” votes—that is, votes the Senate leadership isn’t particularly worried about passing, because they know many senators may miss the vote.

Indeed, Senators Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) both missed the vote due to a flight delays—a common occurrence for Monday evening votes, and one that could have been avoided by scheduling the vote mid-week. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was also inexplicably absent.

Moreover, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not move to reconsider the vote after it failed, meaning he does not intend to bring up the Born Alive bill again. This is a departure in treatment from what priority legislation has received this year. In January, McConnell reconsidered a Middle East security bill no fewer than four times, bringing it to the floor again and again until it achieved the necessary 60 votes. This is a tactic he has available to him on pro-life legislation as well.

This is not to downplay the significance of Monday’s vote. Getting 44 Democrats on the record in support of infanticide is the clarity that the pro-life movement—and the country—needs to fully understand what is at stake.

The momentum should not be wasted.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: Katherine Frey/The Washington Post via Getty Images

America • civic culture/friendship • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • the family

Distinguishing Abortion from Infanticide

We have reached a pivotal moment on abortion. New York recently legalized late-term abortion up to the moment of delivery and repealed a law requiring doctors to care for babies who survive. The new law legalizes procedures for which the infamous abortionist, Kermit Gosnell, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. A similar Virginia proposal generated much discussion but failed in committee. In Rhode Island similar legislation, supported by Gov. Gina Raimondo, is pending.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Senate, Democrats blocked a bill that would require medical professionals to provide care and treatment for babies born alive after abortion attempts. How far we have come since 1996 when President Bill Clinton stated what was then understood to be the mainstream view on abortion: that it should be “safe, legal, and rare.”

Read the rest at the Providence Journal.

America • American Conservatism • Center for American Greatness • Democrats • Donald Trump • feminists • Government Reform • Greatness Agenda • Identity Politics • Post • Pro-Life • The Left • The Resistance (Snicker)

The Art of the SOTU

Do you remember Hillary Clinton?

I know, I know.

Now, do you remember her campaign slogan? It was “I’m with her!”

Incredibly, I still see the peculiar blue-on-white bumper sticker with an “H” on the odd Prius or Volvo in Washington, D.C. It always reminds me of the international symbol for “Hospital.” Appropriate, no?

Now, let me ask you a harder question.

Do you remember what candidate Trump did to that slogan? How he took it, twisted it, and deployed it as a truly deadly rhetorical H-bomb against Hillary?

It was June 22, 2016, and the future president was speaking in New York City, where he said: “She thinks it’s all about her. Her campaign slogan is ‘I’m with her.’ You know what my response to that is? I’m with you, the American people!”

For those who study strategic communications, those 30 little words were a political “kill-shot.” In just four sentences, Donald Trump had perfectly encapsulated everything that was so wrong about Hillary Clinton: her arrogance, her sense of entitlement, her disregard for any other human being, and her naked and destructive ambition.

At the same time, he was able to tell Americans with utmost succinctness why they should vote for him: he had it all and didn’t need the job; he was there to fix a broken system; to serve Americans, not himself. And it was that message that took him to the White House.

Having worked for Donald Trump before January 20, 2017, and for President Trump as his White House strategist after the inauguration, I never thought I would see him out-do that ultimate exemplar of political communication. I always enjoyed seeing him leave the White House and hit the road to give stump speeches as opposed to formal, teleprompter-driven addresses, where the instinctual, non-politician I knew could be unleashed, but I never thought he could do better than that day in New York. I was wrong. And I am very happy to admit it.

Tuesday night’s State of the Union was the best speech Donald J. Trump has ever given, before or after becoming our 45th commander-in-chief. This is for two reasons. First, in terms of substance. Pick any issue that elevated Donald Trump into the White House—or any issue that has since then become centrally important, such as the abortion-to-infanticide horror—and he didn’t back down on any of them. Not the wall, not ObamaCare. Not deregulation, not infrastructure. Not lowering the outrageous cost of prescription drugs, not withdrawing from Obama’s disastrous Iran deal. None of it. There was no watering-down. No dilution to please the Republican RINO Coward Caucus, or the intransigent and increasingly radical Democratic Party. He held the line.

But more than that, President Trump took Tuesday’s speech to America and the World to send as clear a message as possible on other issues that were not part of his original MAGA agenda. He picked up the gauntlet again and again. There was no backing down, no attempt to just move past issues or to ignore issues that have taken center stage since he was elected.

Nor was anything so powerful as his statement that, as president, he is proposing the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” given the shocking moves by Democrats in New York State and Virginia to legalize not only third-trimester abortion but also post-birth murder. Not only did the president not avoid the issue, he charged at it head-on, as his choice of words for the bill’s title signals, he is calling out all the Democrats who subscribe to Margaret Sanger’s culture of death. The title doesn’t skirt what we are talking about. It doesn’t talk about “embryos,” it calls the most vulnerable life in the womb what it is: a child. Bravo, Mr. President.

But it is outside the issue of direct content of the State of the Union that the president truly outdid himself. In New York, with those 30 words, he revealed the ugly truth of one greedy, dangerous and un-American woman. Last night, he did the same to the whole Democratic Party.

Donald Trump managed to trigger the whole room into singing “Happy Birthday” to one of the Jewish survivors of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, Holocaust survivor Judah Samet, and he playfully conducted them through their celebration. Then in an incredibly moving double tribute to the victims of the Shoah and our military veterans he recognized Sergeant Herman Zeitchik who had liberated the Dachau death camp and one of its prisoners, Joshua Kaufman, the man sitting next to him in the chamber. That was a direct broadside over the hull of the DNC, which, with the evaluation of representatives like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, has embraced institutionalized Anti-Semitism within in its ranks.

But most skillful of all, was how President Trump managed to get the Democrats—especially the “Mean Girl Caucus” dressed in white—to reveal themselves for who they truly are.

The party that has built its image as the party for the oppressed, for minorities, for the working class, sat scowling as the president regaled everyone else with the news of how his policies have brought employment, security, and prosperity to our nation, the likes of which the world has never seen, and especially to exactly those groups. Freshman diva Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) couldn’t even bring herself to applaud the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent President Trump recognized for rescuing more than 300 girls and women from human-traffickers. Ah, yes, the “party of women.”

But the masterstroke was the president’s decision to celebrate women—even those scowling women.  He celebrated especially the historic number of women gainfully employed, including within the halls of Congress. Suddenly at that mention, the self-declared suffragettes looked at each other, decided to stand up, high-five the air and cheer. For themselves. And they had no idea what he had just done.

This was rhetorical jujitsu the likes of which I thought I would never see again since Trump’s “I’m with you!” moment in New York. In one deft joyous flourish of heartfelt celebration for the fairer sex, Donald Trump the master orator showed the “New Wave” Democrats for who they truly are: a selfish, mean-spirited, parochial, clique that only care for themselves and not for real Americans. No number of policy papers or campaign ads could do that. Pure genius.

Oh, and just remember, Hillary could have been giving Tuesday’s State of the Union.

God is good.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call

Center for American Greatness • Congress • Conservatives • Post • Pro-Life • The Culture • The Left

One of These Genocides Is Not Like the Others

The story of America as told by the American Left is one of unremitting exploitation, enslavement, and genocide. A country founded on the backs of African slaves and steeped in the blood of Native Americans is, according to this view, illegitimate at best. This is what they mean when they say “America was never great.”

No people or nation is without sin or shame. Yet we can acknowledge the evils of slavery and the harsh treatment of natives without abandoning the entire project of American nationhood. We can acknowledge the great shortcomings of the past without obliterating great accomplishments in the process.

As it is with past injustice, so it should be with present injustices. What could be greater than the mass slaughter of the unborn?

The Democratic Party continues championing this barbaric practice with wanton abandon. Recently, One World Trade Center was lit a vibrant pink color, not to honor breast cancer awareness but to celebrate “women’s rights.” But New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had a very specific right in mind. The choice to color pink the skyscraper that stands in the place of the Twin Towers taken down by al Qaeda on 9/11 was to laud the passage of a despicable bill that enshrines late-term abortions in law.

The practice of late-term abortion allows for a baby to be killed up until its due date “if the mother’s health is at risk.” Of course, this caveat is entirely subjective and often abused. After all, an unborn child isn’t the hope for our future to a leftist. It is an inconvenience to the mother. For many, abortion is used as a form of contraception. What’s more, since abortion was legalized in 1973, nearly 60 million children have been killed in the womb.

Pro-life advocates routinely are asked to believe that those 60 million murdered children aren’t children at all and that abortion is not murder. Whereas early abortion activists vowed that they would support measures to ensure abortion would remain a rarity in American life, today’s Left makes the case for abortion as a positive good. They’ve created catchy slogans; rewritten national education programs defending abortion as a “women’s right”—they even have a taxpayer-funded organization that conducts abortions on an industrial scale.

Meanwhile, the Left continues haranguing Americans about their collective guilt for the mistreatment of Native Americans and the enslavement of African-Americans. But consider this: according to most estimates, more than 10 million Native Americans were killed by European colonists since the Americas were discovered in 1492. None other than Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of Harvard estimates that 3.9 million African-Americans were in chains when slavery ended during the U.S. Civil War.

These two incidents were truly tragic and a blight on our national heritage. But the numbers also pale in comparison to the number of children killed in the course of 46 years.

It’s strange, then, that the Democratic Party has made it their mission to humiliate Americans over their ancestors’ shabby treatment of both Native and African-Americans on the basis of innocent lives lost while they celebrate and march in defense of the mass slaughter of unborn children. Democrats are fighting to ensure that abortion not only remains the law of the land but also to ensure those laws are interpreted as loosely as possible.

The Left’s endless celebration of abortion is as offensive as celebrating the injustices visited upon Native Americans or African-Americans would be. Why must we hate our country in the name of 10 million Native Americans killed by our ancestors or 3.9 million African-Americans enslaved, but think so little of the deaths of some 60 million children? 

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit: Charles McQuillan/Getty Images

America • Elections • feminists • Post • Pro-Life • Progressivism • The Culture

The Party of Death, Out in the Open

Safe, legal, and rare was a lie.

President Bill Clinton in 1996 told Americans abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” That was then. Now the cult of death, pro-abortion movement has taken over the Democratic Party whole-cloth, and the result is the infanticidal law passed in New York on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Now the party line has shifted to abortion on demand, paid for by taxpayers, at any time, even up until moments before birth: witness what just took place in New York state. The Empire State no more; New York is now the Abortion State.

The laws just signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo are as vile as they are expansive. New Yorkers are now legally able to end the life of their unborn child up until the moment of birth. In cases which threaten the health (even the mental health) of the mother or when the unborn child isn’t considered “viable,” a woman now has the right to have lethal injection performed on the child, ending its life just moments before it would enter the world.

And you don’t even need a doctor to conduct this abortion; New Yorkers can have physician assistants and even midwives perform some abortions. New York’s new abortion laws put it in the same class as China, Vietnam, and North Korea, where abortion is available at most any point.

The bad company in which New York now finds itself should speak to the immorality of this law. Just because people pass a law and make something “legal” doesn’t mean an action thereby becomes moral or ethical or right: slavery was legal, too. To hear the cheers on the floor of the New York Senate when the law passed must have been the same sound slave owners made when a new big shipment of fresh slaves came pulling into port or the cheers that echoed through the Reichstag with the passage of the Nuremberg Laws.

New York can legalize evil all day long, but it won’t change the brutal reality that a human child dies with every abortion. “Legality” didn’t justify the Nazis’ atrocities, nor did it legitimize institutionalized racism and slavery in America’s Antebellum South. Neither can it legitimize abortion on demand.

The singular William Wilberforce, when he spoke on the floor of the House of Commons over 200 years ago, pushing for the abolition of the slave trade throughout the British Empire, said, “Policy is not my principle and I am not ashamed to say it. There is a principle above everything that is political and when I reflect on the command which says, ‘Thou shalt do no murder,’ believing that authority to be divine, how can I dare set up my reasonings of my own against it. And when we think of eternity, and of the future consequences of all human conduct, what is there in this life that should make any man contradict the dictates of his conscience, the principle of justice and the laws of religion, and of God?”

There is no justice or rightness or goodness in what New York has done.

Horrifyingly, Vermont legislators are now looking to follow New York’s lead with an abortion bill that would loosen controls on abortion even further. The proposed constitutional amendment in Vermont would ban prosecution of  “any individual for inducing, performing, or attempting to induce or perform the individual’s own abortion,” making it functionally impossible to stop someone from performing abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. Moreover, Democrats in the state of Virginia are brazenly proposing legislation to have abortions up until the moment of birth, their governor having suggested in a radio interview that it is no big deal. Rhode Island and New Mexico Democrats are making similar moves.

It’s almost as though Democrats are channeling Mengele and Molech.

There are terms for what they are proposing, including butchery, infanticide, and murder. In a normal society, people who proposed such barbarism would be ostracized and yet Democrats openly celebrate these politicians as heroes and champions. They are not just tolerated, they are embraced by one of the major political parties in the United States.

To add further to the sickness of it it all, some of these same people, no doubt would be horrified by the killings of kittens or puppies or baby sea turtles, yet with a straight face and acting as though it’s perfectly normal they propose killing a human baby right at the moment of birth.

There is nothing normal about any of this and, in a very personal way, this is all quite horrific. There are moments in life you never forget and for me, the moment my daughter was born at 24 weeks is one of those. This little one pound, seven-ounce, 12-inch long baby girl, shortly after she was born, took my forefinger into her hand. Her skin was like tissue paper, her eyes still sealed shut; her little hand, with its perfectly formed fingernails, was so tiny it couldn’t even fit around my finger. I just stood there by her isolette, watching her, torn by grief, wanting to lay down and take her place, praying, hoping: It was clear that this tiny human being wanted to live. Of course, she could not speak these words but she was fighting. After four months in the NICU, she came home to us. She just turned 11 a few months ago.

My daughter’s survival and her beautiful life showed me clearly that the pro-abortion lobby is on the wrong side of literally everything, including science. Now, children like my daughter are born earlier and earlier. Doctors are able to save babies in even more desperate conditions at even earlier weeks of the pregnancy. Eventually, we might see a time when an unborn child is viable at extremely early stages of the pregnancy. At some point, abortion advocates must come to terms with the obvious implications of their actions: they are killing human beings. Period. As slavery is a horrifying blot on our history, for which we paid dearly with hundreds of thousands of lives, so too abortion on demand is to the utter shame of this great nation. The Left will not let us forget the stain of slavery, but what has it learned from it?

In light of what New York has done, and what other states are proposing, it is time for the Senate and House to take up the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act that would ensure that abortions cannot be performed 20 weeks after fertilization. There are literally only seven countries in the entire world that allow these late-term elective abortions: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Canada, the Netherlands, Singapore, and the United States. This should horrify every American with a conscience.

But clearly, it doesn’t.

On the day he signed the bill into law, Cuomo ordered the lights of World Trade Center One changed pink to commemorate the passage of the bill. Cuomo should have had them colored red for the blood on the hands of New York state for all the innocent children who will lose their lives.

Photo credit: BSIP/UIG Via Getty Images

America • Center for American Greatness • Democrats • Post • Pro-Life • Religion and Society • The Culture • the family • The Left

Too Fearful of Man to be Fearful of God

Of the many memorable scenes and sequences from the film, “Casablanca¸ one that stands out for both its subtlety and its continuing resonance comes when the Bulgarian Bride—her name is Annina Brandel in the script—sits down with Rick Blaine and asks for some very important advice. Let’s watch the scene first before discussing it:

The young woman, played by Joy Page, wants to know whether she can trust Captain Renault to deliver exit visas for her and her husband, Jan, if she sleeps with him. She poses her question to Rick as a hypothetical, but we know the central moral issue of her query cuts deep: it’s basically the same choice Rick’s lost love, Ilsa Lund, made when she left him standing the rain in Paris at the train station in order to rejoin her husband. She doesn’t know that, of course; when Rick abruptly excuses himself, she has no idea that he’s going to rig the roulette wheel in Jan’s favor in order for them to win enough money to afford the visas and then get the hell out of North Africa for America.

It’s a quandary to which we can all relate. One of her lines of dialogue, however, has an especially timely meaning: “The Devil has the people by the throat.” In the context of the film, the Devil is Hitler and the Nazis; the Brandels were lucky to escape with their lives. Today, the Devil is much closer to home. I’m speaking, of course, about the recent “Reproductive Health Act” passed by the New York State legislature and signed into law by a nominal Catholic governor, Andrew Cuomo. It is the greatest moral disgrace in American history and, if we don’t stop it, it’s just the beginning of what Ramesh Ponnuru has called, correctly, “the infanticide craze.”

In New York State, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law that makes abortion legal, even after the unborn child is viable, so long as the abortionist makes a “reasonable and good-faith judgment” that abortion will protect the pregnant woman’s health. In Rhode Island, Governor Gina Raimondo has pledged to sign legislation that also makes abortion legal after viability to “preserve . . . health.” In Virginia, state legislator Kathy Tran has introduced legislation that would, she has explained, make abortion legal even at term and in the middle of birth. Governor Ralph Northam supports that legislation.

Does he ever: “When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way,” Northam said on WTOP radio in Washington. “And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.”

Northam, of course, is a Democrat; a member of a criminal organization masquerading as the political party of slavery, segregation, secularism, socialism and sedition. If there is any meaningful distinction between his sentiments (for which he was roundly roasted by decent Americans) and those of any national-socialist murderer—other than perhaps his assurance that the victim would be “kept comfortable”—I would like to hear them.

Let’s be clear: the Empire State’s new law, and the one proposed but luckily so far tabled in Virginia, where it never got out of committee, has nothing to do either with reproduction or health. In fact, diabolically, it is the exact opposite. For it is meant to allow what amounts to infanticide right up to the moment of birth, thus preventing reproduction, and it has little or nothing to do with a woman’s “health”—unless you, like the Democrats, define pregnancy as a disease.

Shamefully, the New York legislature erupted in cheers when the bill passed, and the governor—his sainted father, Mario, was an unctuous phony, but Andrew is the real thuggish deal—said, “this is a victory for all New Yorkers” and ordered the Freedom Tower in lower Manhattan to glow pink in the celebration of homicidal “feminism’s” latest burnt offering to Baal and Moloch.

The Devil has the people by the throat, indeed. And a pussy hat on his horns.

Meanwhile, those who actually are in the business of devil-fighting, instead of devil-worshipping, are AWOL. That would be the Catholic Church (the rest of the Christian sects are too far gone to care, or care about), in the form of the Irishman, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, and the Argentine-born Italian pope, Francis. If any single public figure has richly earned public excommunication from the Church, Andrew Cuomo is him. And yet, where are Francis and Cardinal Dolan?

It’s been a rough time for faithful Catholics recently in our state government’s frantic rush for “progressive” ideas.

I’m thinking first of the ghoulish radical abortion-expansion law, which allows for an abortion right up to the moment of birth; drops all charges against an abortionist who allows an aborted baby, who somehow survives the scissors, scalpel, saline and dismemberment, to die before his eyes; mandates that, to make an abortion more convenient and easy, a physician need not perform it; and might even be used to suppress the conscience rights of health care professionals not to assist in the grisly procedures. All this in a state that already had the most permissive abortion laws in the country.

Those who once told us that abortion had to remain safe, legal and rare now have made it dangerous, imposed and frequent.

So, what are you going to do about it, Your Eminence? Nothing: “Notable canon lawyers have said that, under canon law, excommunication is not an appropriate response to a politician who supports or votes for legislation advancing abortion,” he said in a statement.

This is not only wrong, it’s cowardly, which is what we’ve come to expect from the American bishops, who have been so busy trying to bury their gay clergy scandal without getting the hems of their skirts dirty that—since many of them have no skin in the game in more ways than one—they don’t have time for matters of faith and morals any more.

As I’ve often asked, what would Dagger John do?

In 1844, faced with a Nativist threat to burn down St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral (at Prince and Mott streets), John J. Hughes, the Irish-born bishop (and later first archbishop) of New York, gathered several thousand of his mostly Irish parishioners and deployed them around the church. Any attack on the cathedral, warned the man known as “Dagger John,” would be repulsed with force. The Nativists backed down.

During the Civil War, Hughes undertook a secret mission to Europe at the personal request of Abraham Lincoln, to rally support for the Union cause and keep Britain from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy. This he did in part by explaining the facts of life to the English: that they’d have no luck in raising troops in restive, famine-stricken Ireland to fight against America, and a great deal of trouble if they tried.

Those were the days of the two-fisted Irish clergy, who understood their dual American roles as both the spiritual leaders of their people and—when necessary—political figures as well. But those days are long gone (Cardinal O’Connor was the last of the line).

In other words, Archbishop Dolan and his confreres ought to ask themselves, What Would Dagger John Do? No need for mobs this time, just morals. But if they’re not going to vigorously defend their own faith, in a Church Militant sort of way, who will? 

I wrote that in 2012, when the public threat to private morals came from another notional Catholic, Kathleen Sebelius, implementing Obamacare’s mandatory birth-control coverage at government gunpoint. Over the next two years, I wrote three more articles in this series, concluding with this:

So I’ll tell you what Dagger John would do. (For more on Dagger John Hughes, please consult the first three articles in this series herehere, and here.) He would simply refuse to comply no matter how the courts rule, announce that no Catholic institution will either obey the mandate or pay the fines, stand on the steps of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and dare Eric Holder to arrest him in front of every TV camera in New York City.

With just a few changes of words, the same sentiment could and should be expressed today:

Ah, but the Dagger Johns of the Church Militant are long gone, and in their place have come the mincing social-justice warriors in cassocks and mitres, too fearful of man to be fearful of God, false to their faith and false to their mission. Andrew Cuomo and his gloating, murderous, ilk are bad enough, but these whited sepulchers are even worse, because they know better and don’t care.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

That’s Jesus talking, not me. The hell with them all.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo credit:  Kevin Mazur/Getty Images