Since the Supreme Court made their erroneous decision on Roe v. Wade, allowing states to determine life and death instead of defending the right to life as enshrined in natural law and our founding documents, abortion has increased! Did you know that there has been a higher percentage of abortions since the death of Roe v. Wade than before? Gratefully, some precious sons and daughters of God have been spared and will now enjoy an earthly existence that they might otherwise have been denied. However, in other places, the death factories are working overtime to genocide the future generation of Americans.
The Supreme Court must have missed that part about no one being deprived of life when they said states could deprive people of life if they so chose.
While conservatives celebrated the death of Roe v. Wade – and I then acknowledged it as at least a partial step forward – I warned that the Supreme Court’s decision would weaken America, embolden radicals, and not end abortion. I argued that by so blatantly ignoring the Declaration of Independence’s and Constitution’s guarantee of God-given rights, the Supreme Court usurped authority they did not have by making abortion – the issue of our right to life – a states’ rights matter. That is an insane misinterpretation of the Constitution and of the entire concept of natural law and republican government.
The rationale of states’ rights as it relates to cardinal human rights that supersede all man-made governments is much like the rationale of Protestantism. When you allow everyone to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, don’t be surprised when you suddenly have mass confusion, volatile clashes, institutionalized division, and 45,000 unique opinions on the same topic that, truthfully, only has one correct interpretation.
The simple reality is that states do not have the right to determine for themselves what our God-given rights are. They cannot justly say, for instance, that you don’t have a right to life, a right to defend yourself, a right to own and use private property, a right to buy and sell as you wish, a right to free speech, a right to worship God as you choose, etc. These are not states’ rights prerogatives, but human rights given by God Almighty, codified in the law of nature, and inherited by all at birth.
If states have authority to decide these issues for themselves, there can be no security of any of our rights because they are held at the whim of whoever controls the state government at any given time. If states have always had the right to decide what are and are not human rights, then there were no legal grounds against slavery and the South was perfectly justified in retaining the damnable institution. The logic simply does not hold water. In America, natural law is king, and your personal opinions are irrelevant.
Can you imagine the chaos and instability if we allowed California or New York – or any other state – to decide for themselves what constituted your right of conscience? Christians are already persecuted as it is, but the limits of that persecution would cease to exist if we took the matter of Freedom of religion out of the federal realm and gave it to the states. States could declare this or that ideology a “public danger” and simply ban it.
I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On October 27, 1838, our Church was declared by Governor Boggs of the state of Missouri to be a public threat. Using similar logic to that displayed by the Supreme Court which purposes that states can do whatever they please, the Constitution be damned, Governor Boggs issued a literal extermination order against Latter-day Saints and authorized militia groups to either drive them from the state at the barrel of a gun or “exterminate” them.
If we can acknowledge that all Americans regardless of political jurisdiction should have their rights of conscience held sacrosanct and protected against government intervention and interference at all levels, then why is it so difficult to acknowledge that our right to life is similarly sacrosanct and must not be made the purview of the states?
The faulty logic of “conservatives” is that the Constitution’s Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve the authority over such matters as abortion to the states. However, to accept this incorrect idea is to accept that the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution mean absolutely nothing, have no power, and are themselves incorrect. Let me explain by quoting myself.
“The Supreme Court is gearing up to potentially release an opinion that would not exactly overturn Roe v. Wade, but which would allow the states to decide for themselves. I think this is repugnant to the spirit and meaning of both the Declaration and the Constitution.
“First in the list of rights declared to be self-evident, and which government is duty bound to protect, is life. Some among us repeat “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” without really thinking about it. If we believe these are rights, then how can we permit abortion? If life is a right, how can government, which is created for the purpose of securing our rights, deny that right to millions?
“There is little difference between the atrocious institution of slavery and the infanticide of tens of millions of unborn men and women (in fact, more blacks have been destroyed through abortion than slavery in this country). Both deprive the individual of “life” in any meaningful sense. Without Liberty, life is meaningless. Without Liberty, there is no ability to pursue happiness. Before you can have Liberty or pursue happiness, however, you must have life. Without life, you have neither Liberty nor happiness.
“Those who support the life-destroying scourge of abortion are enemies to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and America. This is not just another “political issue”; it is a defining principle dealing with the fundamental, natural, God-given rights of individuals. There is a right and a wrong on abortion as much as there is a right and a wrong about slavery, genocide, free speech, or the right of self-defense.
“The U.S. government was created to defend natural rights, including the right to life. This is not the job of the states, though the states should be a secondary defense if the federal government neglects its duty. This is a federal, or national, issue. The federal Constitution, not the individual state constitutions, is the supreme law of the land. If the federal government has no jurisdiction to defend life in the states, then, in all honesty, please tell me why we even have a national government and a constitution.
“The Declaration of Independence, which declared our right to life, was written by the representatives of the whole People. It is as good as gospel law for Americans. Remember what the Founding Fathers said in the Declaration, that if ANY government falls short of its mandate to secure the rights of life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its people, it is despotic and must be altered or abolished. . . .
“I repeat that the right to life is a right guaranteed by the Declaration and the Constitution. The Declaration explicitly champions the right to life and the Preamble to the Constitution explicitly states that its purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” If babies do not have a right to life, then we older human beings don’t either. It either applies equally to everyone or it’s not a right.
“Roe v. Wade is a bastardization of law, Liberty, and logic, to say nothing of conscience and morality. It is a demonic violation of the most fundamental of all God-given rights guaranteed by our founding documents. The judges usurped power, concocted a “right” out of whole cloth, and stripped young human beings of their implicit right to life. . . .
“In America, we don’t take our principles from the courts, we take them from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and they took them from natural law and the Bible. In America, polls and popularity don’t decide policy, law, or rights. It doesn’t matter how many feminists screech and howl or how many Antifa thugs march through the streets, the right to life is sacred and has been codified by U.S. law since 1776.
“Defending Freedom is not a states’ rights issue; it is a human issue. Specifically, the right to life is one of the big-picture problems that the nation as a whole must face and must collectively solve. Life is a federal/national issue that the states do not have exclusive purview over, but one in which they may ratify, support, and confirm the People’s national representatives in safeguarding.
“In all seriousness, dear reader, if the Constitution does not encompass the right to life, being one of the most fundamental rights, then what is its purpose? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and I submit to every rational mind that it authorizes its agents – those who raise their arm and swear to uphold it – to defend, protect, and preserve life. Abortion is a blatant violation of eternal law, natural law, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and science. It is human sacrifice. It is evil and must be stamped out.
“If the Supreme Court refuses to undo Roe v. Wade nationally, eternal shame on them – and eternal shame on all government representatives and citizens at all levels who are too cowardly to stand up for the right to life. If the high court attempts to make it a state issue, they have abdicated their duty to uphold the Constitution and show their own cowardice. At least, if protecting life becomes a state issue, half of the nation will rise to the challenge and create pockets of life and Liberty. Sadly, however, the plague will not end, divine judgements will not be averted, and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution will slide further down the totem of importance.”
Was I right or was I wrong? If the babies who are being slaughtered at a higher rate could speak, they would tell you I was right, the Supreme Court was wrong, the Constitution has been even widely ignored by the states since 2022, and abortion is a scourge that will draw down the judgements of an offended God.
To all the so-called “conservatives” who thought it was a genius idea to allow states to decide whether we have a right to life, spitting upon the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in the process, shame on you. Repent and throw your weight behind the Constitution and the God-given rights it guarantees to every America regardless of the state in which they reside.
America is falling. We are buckling under the weight of our collective immorality, ignorance, apathy, arrogance, and contention. We are being divided and conquered by a single-minded Elite of Satanic conspirators who wish to subjugate us. The Roe v. Wade decision was a step forward on one hand, but a huge blow against whatever residual unity we still had in 2022.
With baby murder now being enshrined as a “right” in the constitutions of several states, and with an activist Supreme Court that things states have a greater right to define life than does the U.S. Constitution which they are supposed to uphold, America is more hopelessly divided than before. In our divided state, we will be easier to rip apart – and, trust me, there are jackals within and abroad who are collaborating to rip us into pieces and devour the scraps.
About a decade ago, I read a private communication revealed by Wikileaks, which I have unfortunately lost, between two Elitists discussing the rumblings of opposition among the general population. One of the two voiced concern about the popular uprising that was beginning to emerge. The other individual, however, simply laughed and said the political opposition meant nothing because their plan of undermining our morality was in full swing and succeeding on all fronts.
History has proved this same point; namely, that immoral nations are incapable of Freedom. Benjamin Franklin warned about this when he said:
“[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters” (Benjamin Franklin to Abbes Chalut and Arnoux, April 17, 1787).
John Witherspoon agreed with his contemporary, contending:
“Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue. On the other hand, when the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigor, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed” (John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Man,” May 17, 1776).
General Washington concurred, warning the nation of the need for religion and morality:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).
Using the colorful lexicon which he employed so powerfully, John Adams asserted:
“We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, October, 11, 1798).
Another time, Mr. Adams declared:
“The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies” (John Adams to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776).
Hebrews sacrificing their children to Moloch/Molech. How is this different than modern abortion?
Unless America repents of her wickedness and returns in humility to Jesus Christ who is the God of this land and embraces our Heaven-inspired Constitution with its guarantee of natural rights, such as the right to life, Liberty, property, self-defense, and conscience, she will fall. If we continue to sanction the slaughter of innocent children, and even celebrate the constitutionally illiterate judges who allow the slaughter to be institutionalized by the states in defiance of the Declaration of Independence and federal Constitution, we will deserve the terrible cleansing God has in store for us.
Dear reader, I warn you that upholding the practice of abortion places you in opposition to the Kingdom of Heaven. To all, I say, prepare for the coming collapse. Get right with God. Pick yourself back up each time you stumble or backslide. We all do. We all need daily repentance. Even the dastardly evil of abortion can be repented of if the offender is sincere enough and goes through the proper process. Please try, as imperfectly as we mortals can, to follow in the footsteps of our Savior. His Gospel is the only path of holiness that leads to the Kingdom of Heaven and, I use the words deliberately, eternal life.
“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Dobbs v. Jackson, June 24, 2022
The Judeo-Marxist Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, blew a gasket today in his reaction to the Supreme Court’s momentous overruling of Roe v. Wade. He shrieked:
“Today is one of the darkest days our country has ever seen.
“American women are having their rights taken by 5 unelected Justices on the extremist MAGA court.
“These justices—appointed by Republicans and presiding without accountability—have stolen the fundamental right to abortion.”
Imagine being so demon-possessed and enamored with murdering babies that you call today’s Court opinion a “dark” act that steals away human rights! Schumer is an enemy to the American People, the Constitution, and human Freedom. He is a mob-inciting revolutionary jackal that doesn’t care about your human rights or the future of America. He is an anti-Christ in word and deed.
Schumer is not alone. His fellow vipers in the hijacked and rotting Bolshevik corpse we call a government echoed his Devilish view. Deranged Nancy Pelosi slurred this response to the press:
“Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved the GOP’s dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions. Because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party and their supermajority on the Supreme Court, American women today have less freedom than their mothers. . . .
“This cruel ruling is outrageous and heart-wrenching. But make no mistake: the rights of women and all Americans are on the ballot this November.”
There is the word “dark” again. Pelosi, Schumer, and the other heartless imps who maniacally lord over us are so backwards that they literally advocate child murder and call pro-life supporters “dark” and “cruel.”
In solidarity with their government coconspirators, thousands of brainwashed people who, sadly, can vote, rallied in the streets and had a collective coronary. Women wept and wailed. Leftist politicians from Beijing Biden to Comrade Cortez to Gavin Newsom melted down and vowed open defiance to rule of law and our constitutional system. Democrat-occupied states like Illinois vowed to not follow the Court’s opinion. Radicals threatened to destroy the government, overthrow the Supreme Court, and burn cities. Revolutionaries promised a “night of rage” and rioting. Libsoftiktok perhaps summed up the feelings of the pro-infanticide crowd when they said they should “burn it all down.”
Among the many emotion-driven, logic-defying slogans I have seen plastered on the signs and shirts of pro-infanticide advocates in Washington today are the following:
“Why is a uterus more regulated than a gun?”
“Bans off our bodies.”
“Freedom is for every body.”
“Abortion is a human right.”
“This is a war on women.”
“Protecting abortion access is a Catholic value.”
“Criminalize ejaculation.”
“Abortion always.”
“Abort the Supreme Court.”
“Abortion is freedom.”
These slogans demonstrate deep delusion and spiritual blindness. For instance, how is it a war on women to stop mothers and fathers from murdering their own children? How is it a war on women to guarantee the fundamental right to life that each person intrinsically possesses and that is proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence? How is it a war on women to say that states – in other words, the voters in the states – can now decide for themselves which abortion regulations they want?
Furthermore, is anyone truly so ignorant that they believe a woman’s uterus is more regulated than guns? When was the last time you had to undergo a background check or take a safety class before accessing, using, or operating a uterus? Do you have to go to a specifically licensed dealer to find a uterus? Is there a mandatory waiting period for uteruses? Are you prohibited from transporting a uterus across state lines? Of course not. In fact, these days, feminist “women” walk around in costumes of uteruses and wear vagina hats! How is their Freedom being restricted?
No one is restricting anything related to reproduction. Frankly, that’s the root problem. If women and men stopped copulating like dogs in heat with no self-control, reason, or free will, there would be no need to murder children. If they obeyed eternal law mandating that sex is reserved for men and women lawfully married, there would be no need for baby slaughter. If these hedonists were responsible individuals, they would not violate their chastity in the first place, but, in the second place, they would man up or woman up and become parents to the sweet little soul they chose to bring into their lives.
See, no one is forcing these baby-haters to have sex, nor is having sex a right. No one is putting them at “risk” of receiving the unsurpassed blessings of parenthood except themselves. If they don’t want to have children, no one is forcing them to procreate. Didn’t all those pornographic sex ed classes that government-controlled public schools force kids to endure teach them that babies are the result of sex?
Feminists, I don’t want to sound crass, but close your legs if you don’t want to “risk” pregnancy. If you voluntarily choose to engage in the one activity in existence that will potentially get you pregnant, you have no right to then destroy the life that results from your choice – the life of an independent boy or girl with their own body, their own rights, their own potential, and their own hopes and dreams. You have the right to choose, but you don’t have the right to determine the consequence of your choice.
Leftist writer Kara Voght went with this lying headline today: “Anti-Abortion Teens Dance as Women Lose Their Right to Choose.” Again, we come to this issue of choice and agency – the fundamental issue in all eternity. Who is forcing all these women to get pregnant? Who is forcing them to procreate? No one is forcing them! They are making conscious choices that have certain, specific, well-known results. It is a blatant lie to say that any woman had her right to choose taken away today. In fact, the American People were just gifted the ability to determine their state’s abortion laws. Is not this a “pro-choice” action?
Regardless of the science confirming the living personhood of children beginning at conception, the Declaration of Independence proclaiming a universal right to life, the Preamble to the Constitution declaring the purpose of government to be the protection of rights, the Supreme Court handing the ability to decide abortion to the People in their respective states, and the holy scriptures confirming the sanctity of life, the surly crowd in Washington is so enraged with reality, truth, and rule of law, that they are even now chanting: “We want abortion on demand.”
Instead of simply exercising self-control and discipline, these people choose to embrace hedonism, champion consequence-free lust, and demand the legally-protected sanction to kill their innocent offspring. Evil is the only word for it.
That brings us to the crux of this article. The ancient prophet Isaiah chastised those who call good evil and evil good. He warned against this practice and foretold the consequences:
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! . . . .
“Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 5:20, 24).
When our elected “leaders” publicly say that preserving innocent life is “dark” and “cruel” and that it strips us of our rights to defend the rights of another, we know we are living in the midst of prophecy. Isaiah was a prophet. He pronounced woe upon people like Schumer, Pelosi, and their coconspirators. He promised that the Lord Jesus Christ would not tolerate evil and violations of His law. History bears this out and America will reap the whirlwind unless she repents, changes, and embraces the eternal laws of truth and justice.
Fortunately, when the Supreme Court’s opinion was handed down today, it immediately “triggered” abortion bans or restrictions in thirteen states. Those states are: Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee. We will see if they stand their ground and enforce what they previously pledged. At least Missouri, Utah, Oklahoma, and likely others, have already formally put their laws into effect. Besides these states, thirteen others have laws restricting abortion, making the total twenty-six. Wisconsin, for instance, has now halted all abortions. I pray the number of baby-protecting will increase.
Unfortunately, I foresee the increase of chaos, hatred, and mobocracy, as I predicted in my article “What I See Coming.” Not long after Antifa thugs and Black Lives Matters Marxists burned down half the country, defaced historical monuments, and committed some three dozen murders, the same ideologically-compatible radicals have firebombed numerous pro-life centers, churches, and government offices. School shootings get the headlines, but are they honestly worse than Marxist radicals firebombing pro-life centers, churches, and government offices?
Jane’s Revenge is the name of one such Marxist group that has taken credit for the vandalizing and destruction of pro-life centers. They are calling for a “night of rage.” In a statement issued prior to the formal opinion being released, they said:
“This is an event that should inspire rage in millions of people who can get pregnant . . . and yet, the response thus far has been tepid.
“We have agonized over this apparent absence of indignation. Why is it that we are so afraid to unleash hell upon those who are destroying us? Fear of state repression is valid, but this goes deeper than that.
“. . . We need to get angry.
“We need the state to feel our full wrath.
“We need to express this madness fully and with ferocity. We need to quit containing ourselves.
“We need them to be afraid of us. . . .
“The time to act was decades ago. The next best time is now.
“Whatever form your fury takes, the first step is feeling it.
“The next step is carrying that anger out into the world and expressing it physically.
“Consider this your call to action.
“On the night the final ruling is issued——a specific date we cannot yet predict, but we know is arriving imminently——we are asking for courageous hearts to come out after dark.
“Whoever you are and wherever you are, we are asking for you to do what you can to make your anger known. . . .
“To those who work to oppress us: If abortion isn’t safe, you aren’t either. We are everywhere.”
Classic Marxist drivel. Sadly, it isn’t talk. These people are serious, conniving, and capable of evil. If you can murder an innocent child and call it “freedom,” you are capable of anything.
Jane’s Revenge joins the company of radical organizations like the terroristic Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Communist Party USA.
A few days ago, the Jewish-Masonic ADL called the pending opinion racist, said it would be a violation of religious Liberty because some religions (like their own Zionist Judaism) don’t believe in life at conception, claimed it would have negative “ripple effects on the economy,” alleged it would make people “vulnerable to bias and discrimination,” and said that people would be “prevented from making their own reproductive choices and exercising decision-making autonomy.” Total fear-mongering, anti-American claptrap as usual.
The Southern Poverty Law Center likewise today said:
“[T]he U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey is no less disgraceful – one that should deeply alarm Americans who care about our most fundamental rights. . . .
“As we know, this decision to overturn the rights acknowledged in Roe v. Wade, a precedent that has been in place for almost 60 years, is the culmination of a powerful, concerted movement to ensure that politicians control women’s bodies. It should be noted that some senators who voted to confirm the three justices nominated by former President Trump – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – now say they were misled during the confirmation process. . . .
“Today, we are outraged about this decision from the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority.
“We mourn – and gear up for action.”
A group called Scotus 6 has now released the private details and addresses of the six so-called “conservatives” and called for protests at their homes. Have we forgotten that a leftist would-be assassin was arrested outside of Justice Kavanaugh’s home? This is the kind of “action” that these radical groups are demanding. They want blood.
The Communist Party USA released a statement decrying the overthrow of Roe, saying:
“The Supreme Court decision surely ranks high among the worst, anti-human decisions in its history such as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 or Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896. . . .
“Like the 19th-century justices, today’s right-wing Supreme Court has determined that certain people, in this case women and trans men, are even less equal than they were before the court ruled on June 24. . . .
“Today we mourn this horrific setback. Tomorrow and beyond, we organize. Everywhere — in our communities, unions, schools, places of worship, and workplaces. We must help build a backlash against the Right, one in the same spirit as the women who rebelled after Trump’s election and helped take the House of Representatives away from the GOP in 2018; the millions who marched for Black Lives after the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others; and the teachers, auto workers, and nurses who went on strike these past four years.
“As big as these movements were, the current situation demands a much larger movement, one that’s more inclusive, broader, more militant. Civil disobedience is in order. . . .
“We also mean inclusiveness in terms of tactics. Some may only be willing to make phone calls to their elected officials. Some may want to work in the electoral arena to vote out anti-abortion politicians. Others may demonstrate and engage in civil disobedience and risk arrest. All tactics are on the table.”
One of those tactics is violent revolution. This is what the Revolutionary Communist Party called for today in a statement titled: “The Supreme Court Ruling Overturning Roe v. Wade Is ILLEGITIMATE! We Need Resistance and Revolution!” It said in part:
“The highest court in the most powerful – and vicious – country in the world has ruled that the states can force women to bear children against their will. . . .
“The highest court in the land has essentially stripped women of legal status of full human beings. These religious dictators have made a leap in their enforcement of a lunatic vision of a Christian-fascist America. Forced motherhood is female enslavement!
“Can we tolerate the fact that ALL women and girls now face being treated and legally classified as nothing more than breeders for men and a male supremacist society? . . . .
“Right now everyone with any decency or heart needs to pour into the streets. Right now anyone who cares about the future needs to say: NO! THIS DECISION MUST NOT STAND! WE WILL TAKE TO THE STREETS AND PUT OUR BODIES ON THE LINE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
“Do not swallow your anger. Do not let your righteous fury be doused, or your fighting spirit corralled. There are millions and millions who feel that way—now they must go into the streets. And you must play a role in that—coming into the streets and being part of rousing others.
“. . . The truth is, something is wrong WITH America. The oppression of women—which has just gone to a whole other level—along with the history of slavery, genocide and war that still manifests today in a million ways—is built into this system of capitalism-imperialism.
“We could get beyond that system with its horrific and destructive ways of doing things. Today the basis exists to wipe out exploitation and poverty, to lead and unleash people to go to work on uprooting all forms of oppression and their terrible legacy, to begin to tend to and, yes, heal the environment and prevent the catastrophic future that now looms in on us. But not without uprooting the exploitative and oppressive system that has given rise to this madness and cannot do without it.
“Right now, America is coming apart, with the rulers themselves fighting over how to run their system. One side of these rulers is fighting for something terrible: an outright Christian-fascist form of rule. And they are on the offensive.
“But we don’t have to—and for humanity’s sake, we cannot—accept any of this! The fact that this crisis is so huge and that society is split from bottom to top means that things that have basically remained the same, for decades, can radically change in a very short period of time. And we don’t mean decades from now, either; things are heading toward either a radically reactionary, murderously oppressive and destructive resolution of this crisis, or radically emancipating revolutionary one, quite possibly in the next few years.”
Marxists don’t believe in letting history happen – they want to give it a push. They will be the ones who carry on this “split” in society. They will be the ones who conduct the violence, chaos, and rioting. They are the ones already calling for revolution in the streets.
The Communist Party USA, to say nothing of its more rhetorically violent counterpart, is an illegal party that was banned during the Cold War, but which no one has ever had the manly courage to expunge from existence. Accept this truth: Communism must die before America can rise. The longer treasonous groups like the Communist Party, the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and Jane’s Revenge are allowed to exist and spread their hate, division, and threats against our constitutional system of Freedom, the longer our nation will remain in grave peril.
Less overtly revolutionary bureaucratic types have also threatened revolutionary action. Doddering Marxist Congresswoman Maxine Waters, for instance, breathlessly threatened mass protests while raging: “To hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.” Think of the hypocrisy! Isn’t the Biden regime currently persecuting innocent Americans for protesting the brazen election theft and ratification of the political puppet president on January 6th 2021? Perhaps we should haul Maxine Waters before a tribunal.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul chimed in and said that today’s opinion is an example of “extremism” and called it “repulsive at every level.” She also pledged: “Access to abortion is a fundamental human right, and it remains safe, accessible, and legal in New York.” Traitors like Hochul don’t care what the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, or natural law say – they have sworn themselves to the destruction of human life and our God-given rights.
On the West Coast, California, Oregon, and Washington have launched a committee to act in a coordinated way to protect so-called “reproductive rights.” The respective governors of these three deteriorating states made outlandish comments such as the following by Governor Gavin Newsom:
“The Supreme Court has made it clear – they want to strip women of their liberty and let Republican states replace it with mandated birth because the right to choose an abortion is not ‘deeply rooted in history.’ They want to turn back the clock to a time when women had no right to make decisions about their own bodies, when women had to seek care in the shadows and at great danger, when women were not treated as equal citizens under the law. This is another devastating step toward erasing the rights and liberties Americans have fought for on battlefields, in courthouses and in capitols. This is not the America we know – and it’s not the California way.”
What’s the difference between Gov. Newsom’s comments and those made by the Communist Party? All these traitors use the same language, share the same ideology, and wage the same war against human dignity, God-given rights, and rule of law.
What will the avowed communists and communists-in-Democrat clothing do now that the Court’s opinion is codified and Roe v. Wade is dead? You have just read their thoughts from their own sources. With their vitriol and threat of revolution in mind, do you think the firebombings and attacks on Christians and pro-lifers will stop? Not hardly! Even as we celebrate this event, which is to me a disappointing half measure that doesn’t go far enough and is an abdication of duty in what I believe is a federal government issue dealing with a fundamental right, we must prepare for things to continue spiraling into the abyss because there are evil people who won’t stop until they are stopped.
Dear reader, we are witnessing a massive sifting. This sifting has been occurring for a while, but it has been expedited during the Coronahoax lunacy. This ruling will further speed up the relocation of brainwashed people to communist-occupied states and good folks to states that have a chance at restoring Freedom and becoming pockets of sanity, Liberty, and light in a dark country.
Yes, the wheat and tares are being separated (Matthew 13:24-30). We now have the express opportunity to vote with our feet – and at the ballot box – to show which side of the right to life we fall on. If we find ourselves on the side of baby-killers, we join ourselves to the group of those the Lord condemned in these words: “he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36). If you find yourself on that side, you stand against the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the wise men who wrote you, against the American tradition, against natural law, and against nature’s God.
To close, I want to cite a few lines from the Court’s decision today. As you read them, consult your conscience and ask yourself if it is really so unreasonable or if protecting life justifies rioting and revolution. If not, then you know where you must stand. This comes from the syllabus:
“Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. . . .
“. . . In interpreting what is meant by “liberty,” the Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Court’s own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. For this reason, the Court has been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. . . .
“Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions. By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis.
“Respondents’ argument that this history does not matter flies in the face of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is nevertheless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor General repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law authorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a post-quickening abortion was a crime. Moreover, many authorities asserted that even a pre-quickening abortion was “unlawful” and that, as a result, an abortionist was guilty of murder if the woman died from the attempt. . . .
“Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”
Here are several excerpts from the main body:
“For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature.
“Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at roughly the end of the second trimester, which, at the time, corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve “viability,” i.e., the ability to survive outside the womb. Although the Court acknowledged that States had a legitimate interest in protecting “potential life,” it found that this interest could not justify any restriction on pre-viability abortions. The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning. One prominent constitutional scholar wrote that he “would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court end[ed] up drafting” if he were “a legislator,” but his assessment of Roe was memorable and brutal: Roe was “not constitutional law” at all and gave “almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
“At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” 410 U. S., at 222, and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half century. . . .
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
“The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. . . .
“Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”
While I disagree that this is a state issue (because it touches the fundamental human right that is the very purpose of government to protect), it is nevertheless a thorough refutation of the flimsy façade of Roe v. Wade. Thank the God of Heaven that many more of His precious sons and daughters will now have a chance to come to earth to work out their own salvation!
Abortion is nothing but child sacrifice. It is Satanic and has been openly proclaimed by The Satanic Temple as a Satanic sacrament. It was anciently a demonic religious ritual. It is a grisly and dastardly act of supreme brutality and seething darkness.
The abortion scourge has, in America alone, killed approximately double the number of people killed during World War II. Today’s opinion doesn’t end the killing, but it will restrict it and will give the American People a chance to show what they are made of – whether they care about God-given rights or not. God help us use our agency more wisely than we have hitherto!
I sincerely pray that good Americans will hold the line and stand up to be counted when the issue is raised in their state. If you are in a state that doesn’t care about the rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, get out quickly and relocate nearer to true patriots. It’s time to draw your line in the sand and mean it. Reject the dark and embrace the light. Let today’s opinion – a sure step in the right direction – steel you for the fight. It’s just getting started.
Zack Strong, June 24, 2022
Read more of my content on abortion and the depopulation agenda below:
On most heated issues, from gun rights to abortion to drugs, you inevitably hear someone raise the issue of federal vs state jurisdiction. Accordingly, I devote today’s article to answering the query: What is federal and what is state? After explaining the principles, I will specifically discuss the issue of infanticide (aka abortion) in this context.
In all honestly, my work is already done. The Constitution generally, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments specifically, have already defined state and federal jurisdictions. I consult the Ninth and Tenth Amendments first. The Ninth dictates:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
And the Tenth Affirms:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
As the best university professor I ever had used to put it, these amendments mean, from the point of view of the Founders: “If we forgot anything, these cover it.” And so they do.
In all honesty, could it be any clearer? These two amendments tell us that everything not explicitly enumerated, listed, and spelled out in the body of the Constitution as a federal matter, belongs properly and of right to the People and the states or local municipalities representing them.
It is a simple concept. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, marveled that anyone could hold an interpretation that the federal government could assume any powers except those which were specifically listed. Said he:
“[W]hen an instrument admits two constructions the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe & precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. our peculiar security is in the possession of a written constitution. let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty making power as boundless. if it is, then we have no constitution. if it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. it specifies & delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution. whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law. whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President & Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence. nothing is more likely than that their enumeration of powers is defective. this is the ordinary case of all human works. let us go on then perfecting it, by adding by way of amendment to the constitution, those powers which time & trial shew are still wanting” (Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Cary Nicholas, September 7, 1803).
If our “construction” of one part of the Constitution would make null and void, or “blank,” the other portions, then it is to be disregarded. If anything other than what is explicitly or obviously and logically intended is admitted, it would mean “we have no constitution.” The point of our Constitution is to “specify” and “delineate” what the federal government is “permitted” to do and where its authority ends.
In 1791, in his opinion on the utter unconstitutionality of Alexander Hamilton’s foreign-owned “national” bank scheme, Jefferson further explained how enumerated powers are supposed to work:
“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
“It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.
“It is an established rule of construction where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers, and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect. It is known that the very power now proposed as a means was rejected as an end by the Convention which formed the Constitution. A proposition was made to them to authorize Congress to open canals, and an amendatory one to empower them to incorporate. But the whole was rejected, and one of the reasons for rejection urged in debate was, that then they would have a power to erect a bank, which would render the great cities, where there were prejudices and jealousies on the subject, adverse to the reception of the Constitution.
“The second general phrase is, “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers.” But they can all be carried into execution without a bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase.”
The logic is unassailable. There is no point in even having a written Constitution if any branch of government can do whatever it wants. What is the point of a Constitution if it doesn’t mean what it says and if it doesn’t empower federal representatives of the People from carrying out the delegated powers? If the national government can assume powers at random and at will, or contrary to those gifted in the charter, why even have a Constitution at all? Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on Jefferson’s word alone; the Ninth and Tenth Amendments comport completely with Jefferson’s strict interpretation.
The point of enumerated powers – the point of the Constitution – is to spell out in plain English what government can and cannot do. The Constitution was a tight circle drawn around government over which it could not justly, legally, and morally cross. The Bill of Rights was a set of “thou shalt nots” aimed at the government to prevent abuses, tyranny, and overreach. It was also designed to safeguard the rights that the People, through the states, had reserved exclusively to themselves and had not delegated to their elected representatives.
The text of the Constitution is rather plain regarding what each branch of the federal government is allowed to do. Depending how you break up the clauses, Congress, for instance, has about 19 powers delegated to it. None of them says: “Congress may do whatever it wants” or “Congress may overstep its authority in a crisis” or “Congress may decide for itself what its powers are.” Instead, those powers are narrowly defined for them. They include the powers to declare war, tax for specific purposes, maintain a navy, and operate a postal service. Very pointedly, there are no delegated powers that involve charity, healthcare, redistribution of wealth, education, foreign aid, disease prevention, surveillance of the nation, etc.
Furthermore, when congressmen take office, they raise their hands to God and swear with a solemn oath that they will not violate the Constitution, but will uphold and honor it. Why bother requiring such an oath if the Constitution is unspecific and vague or if elected representatives may do whatever they want anyway? The oath would be self-defeating and unenforceable if there were no enumerated powers and specific expectations, limits, and restrictions.
“But what about the ‘general welfare’ clause?” some ask breathlessly. This was covered in Jefferson’s quote earlier. The clause simply means that the federal government may employ the power necessary to carry out its delegated duties. If the American People delegated and entrusted something to Congress, then Congress has the right to carry out or enforce that thing. It does not delegate extra, unknown, or vague powers and prerogatives to the government. It is certainly no mandate for the government to do as it pleases so long as it can be construed as being “for the welfare of the People” or “for the greater good.” Such is always the rationale of ravenous totalitarians.
America was designed to be different. Unchecked power was done away with in 1776 and formally staked through the heart when the Constitution was ratified by the American People. On the ashes of rule of men, the People erected rule of law and self-government. Instituting limited governments defined and bound by written constitutions was to be the way forward.
These constitutions were compacts of the People, issued by them with their consent, and carried out by elected representatives chosen by them and holding their offices and limited powers at their pleasure and will. As long as the Constitution remains, the totalitarians have no just claim on power in the United States of America. Yes, they may seize it or a sleepy population may surrender their birthright, but tyranny has no just, legal, or moral claim here.
What, then, are states’ rights and which matters belong entirely to them? Frankly, it would be fruitless to attempt to list them all. Suffice it to say that everything that is not explicitly delegated to the federal government or logically a part of the nature of government in accordance with natural law is reserved formally and explicitly to the states or to local communities within them. It is that simple.
This balance between federal and state jurisdictions is called federalism. The National Center for Constitutional Studies has explained federalism like this:
“Widely regarded as one of America’s most valuable contributions to political science, federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments. James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” explained it this way: “The powers delegated.to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” And Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.” Since governments tend to overstep the bounds of their authority, the founders knew it would be difficult to maintain a balanced federalism. In fact, that was one of the central issues raised by the state ratifying conventions as they met to decide whether to approve the new Constitution. Responding to this concern, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments.” He believed that “this balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them.” However, the opponents of the Constitution strongly feared that the states would eventually become subservient to the central government. Madison acknowledged that this danger existed, but he predicted that the states would band together to combat it. “Plans of resistance would be concerted,” he said. “One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations would result from an apprehension of federal [domination] as was produced by the dread of a foreign yoke; and the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.””
This outwardly complicated, overlapping system confuses foreigners who are not used to it and who have never been properly educated in federalism or constitutionalism. It even confuses many Americans who have been “educated” in the Marxist public school system. Yet, the idea is simply that the general government is limited to specifically delegated and listed powers, held temporarily at the discretion of the People, and that the People retain the rest of their rights and powers over which the federal government has no say.
In The Federalist No. 51, James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” explained the paramount reason why federalism should be adopted:
“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”
Notice that the states were supposed to rein in the federal government, as demonstrated by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, but, also, the federal Constitution was supposed to check state power when it became abusive. Both had legitimate authority over the other when it came to injustice.
I illustrate one failure of Madison’s idea of federalism that is a black mark on American history – one that applies to our present discussion. On October 27, 1838, Governor Lilburn W. Boggs of Missouri signed the infamous “Extermination Order” against members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The order stated: “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and exterminated or driven from the State if necessary.” Militias, acting on the governor’s authority, subsequently drove the Latter-day Saints from their property and homes in the dead of winter and murdered several of the fleeing group.
I ask you, was this correct, constitutional, or moral? No! It was a hellish atrocity. It was attempted genocide not only in actual fact, but in name. Yet, when Joseph Smith, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, met with President Martin Van Buren in Washington to appeal for the federal government’s help, Van Buren said there was nothing he could do and that he would come into confrontation with the state of Missouri if he got involved. Incredibly, the Senate judiciary committee likewise declined to act, stating that Congress and the federal government had no authority in the matter because of so-called states’ rights and recommended Joseph Smith appeal to the courts in Missouri – the same state which had just signed an order for his and his followers’ extermination!
Do you agree with Van Buren’s and the Senate’s take on the Constitution? Let’s put it in modern terms and see what you think. If California issued an expulsion and extermination order against Muslims, claiming they were a threat to its security, would that be constitutional? No! It would not only be a violation of due process, but of every principle of justice upon which America was founded. It would be an affront to the notion of “pursuit of happiness,” property, and so forth. Yet, this is what happened in Missouri in 1838 and which was permitted by Van Buren’s regime because they believed in a false notion of states’ rights that minimized the Constitution and spat upon the natural law as expounded in the Declaration of Independence.
Because of this massive affront to the Constitution, which declares itself “the supreme Law of the Land,” Joseph Smith and his followers demanded the protections guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Many had become perverted in their view and believed that the Bill of Rights somehow did not apply to the states. Earlier, I described the Bill of Rights as a list of “thou shalt nots” aimed at government. That applies to all levels of government – not just to the federal government.
How idiotic would it be if we restrained the federal government from restricting free speech or taking guns or arresting us without a warrant, but then allowed states to do precisely that! What point would the Constitution serve if states could simply override it? And what does the phrase the “supreme Law of the Land” mean if it is not to be understood literally or if the Constitution has no jurisdiction in the states?
It was only after the Civil War that the Bill of Rights was fully applied to the states and that state governments were prevented from abusing their citizens. Had the true spirit of the Constitution and of Freedom resided in Van Buren’s heart, he would have promptly ordered federal troops into Missouri to stop the heinous expulsion and extermination. That would have been his duty under the Constitution.
This understanding of rights and constitutional protections is crucial. If we discard it, we discard everything. Without this fundamental understanding, we could have no federalism, no Constitution, and no security for our God-given rights.
The Preamble to the Constitution states the purpose of all those enumerated powers and of federalism itself:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Constitution is designed to secure Liberty and natural rights, not deprive people of them. Which people? All people. These natural rights include, but are not limited to, those noted conspicuously in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we acknowledge what seems obviously, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect these natural rights and prevent all government from interfering with them, one more criterion needs to be discussed – implied powers.
The term “implied powers” is frequently appealed to by those who wish to empower government, expand bureaucracy, and trample rights. It is used to imply exactly what Jefferson rejected – the notion that government can do as it pleases for the so-called “general welfare.” There is only one type of “implied” anything that is relevant, and it really isn’t implied so much as its connection to the Constitution is misunderstood or ignored. I speak of duties and rights so logical, basic, and self-evident that they didn’t need to be explicitly recorded; that is, the right of life, Liberty, and property.
For decades, the Declaration of Independence held legal weight in the courts. This is indisputable. It was and is the nation’s first law. It is the first of the so-called four “organic laws” of the United States. Though some courts today discount the Declaration as a legal document, it was once used widely by the courts and is still sometimes referred to today in court opinions. It was the foundation that the American nation was built upon and it cannot be rejected lest the entire structure collapse.
I want to hammer this point home. The first line of the Declaration states that it is the voice of the American People and assumes the same prerogatives and rights of a nation. The Declaration of Independence was also voted on and unanimously approved by the first government of the United States; that is, by the duly chosen delegates of the respective thirteen states sent to the Continental Congress. It was then ratified by the voice and subsequent actions of the People. It became binding by default and everyone acknowledged the validity of the right to life, Liberty, and property.
“The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America. “The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading “The Organic Laws of the United States of America” along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution ‘shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.’”
The Declaration clearly stated that life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others, were natural rights given by the Creator and superseded man-made government. These rights were declared to be “self-evident,” or, to quote Jefferson’s rough draft, “sacred and undeniable.” Furthermore, similar to the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration states that the entire purpose of government is to protect these natural rights and that no government that interferes with them is legitimate:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Isn’t this clear language? Can’t we justly assume that the U.S. government, as well as the state governments, were created pursuant to this Declaration and were intended to secure, among other God-given rights, life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? It would be insane not to make this connection and to deny the fact that our forefathers – including those in government and the court system – formerly believed as much.
The Founding Fathers did not suddenly discover rights in 1776 – they existed from time immemorial and preceded either the British empire, the colonies, of the United States. Samuel Adams proclaimed the following in 1772:
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”
The Declaration of Independence was revolutionary, but not entirely new. American patriots acknowledged and cherished these same rights for generations before they were codified. Devotion to life, Liberty, property, and self-defense predate our War for Independence.
KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA
The Declaration of Independence was, in a sense, the prologue to the Constitution. Without it, no one can have a complete understanding of the Constitution and the latter would have little moral force and no higher focus and purpose. This was the correct contention of Larry P. Arnn in his book The Founders’ Key: The Divine and Natural Connection Between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and What We Risk by Losing It.
In that worthy text, Arnn explained the revolutionary nature of the Declaration, its fundamental basis, and why its principles are indispensable to any competent understanding of constitutional law and government purpose:
“The Declaration of Independence does not read like a document from this world of kings. It hardly reads like a document from any particular world at all.
“The first words of the Declaration are, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people . . .” This does not mean now, in North America in 1776, where killing has broken out between a long-settled government and the people. It does not mean the room in Philadelphia where the signers are gathered. The Declaration does not refer to any particular place. It does not mean those particular signers, either. It does not mean the people who elected those signers. The Declaration does not begin with any reference to those who write and ratify it, or to the nation they are forming. . . .
“But what about this beginning, which is so abstract? The beginning treats these events not as something special or unique but as something that occurs “in the Course of human events.” Soldiers who do brace acts are often shy about discussing them: “Anyone would have done the same.” “I was very frightened, and I acted by instinct” . . . This modesty of the opening of the Declaration is rather like that. Its signers are at the crisis of their lives, and they begin by placing it in context. . . .
“Having established that the situation is not without precedent, the Declaration turns to the standard according to which one must act in such situations. That standard is the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Established in these laws is the principle of equality, first for people, who are entitled to a separate and equal station under these “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Also, each individual person is similarly entitled. This is established by a “self-evident” truth, that is, a truth whose proof is contained in the terms of the truth itself. If you know what a man is, you know that he is created equal. According to this self-evident truth, all men are “created equal,” and “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” among which are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The purpose of government is to secure these rights.” This is the only reason stated why government is “instituted among Men.” In all cases, government derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”
“These principles are not mere abstractions. They are introduced into a concrete situation, a situation established in a long history that includes the elevation and fall of Sir Thomas More and of the Duke of Marlborough, the high station of George III and his ancestors, the titles and privileges and courtesies of the court. These “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” are therefore necessary to the situation. It is obvious that the Revolutionaries cannot appeal to the laws of Great Britain; the purpose of the document is to throw off those laws. It is obvious that they cannot appeal to their own opinions or wishes, unless they are megalomaniacs. Only of God can it be said that His will constituted a rule to all peoples, in all places, and at all times must obey. The Founders needed a law as universal as circumstances the law is supposed to cover. They needed a law applicable in all nature. . . .
“If particular things have a nature, and if things in general have a nature, one can see how one might think that there are rules in nature. The rules would be the combination of the particular nature of each thing and the grand way that things work. These are the rules suggested by the expression the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” . . . .
“The essential similarity among humans may be harder to see when they are standing together, their differences manifest. It is easier to see when they are compared to something else. Such a comparison is right there in the Declaration of Independence, and we have already mentioned it. God is named four times in the Declaration. We can consider another human being both excellent and powerful, but we are not likely to think him the Creator, divine Providence, or the Supreme Judge of the World. . . .
“The distinction between man and God, on the one hand, and man and beast, on the other, underlies our political arrangements and has often emerged as the explicit basis of our policy. . . .
“The necessity of government by consent is written, therefore, in the fact of human equality. That is also the basis for limited government. The very reason we have constitutional rule has to do with the fact that we are neither angels nor beasts, but in between the two” (Arnn, The Founders’ Key, 43-58).
The Declaration of Independence is the foundational document of the American nation. It is our first law. It set forth the thesis of Americanism. It laid down the principles which every future generation should live by and could invoke in its own situation. It declared that rights exist, that they come from God, that they are immutable, that they supersede all government, and that any government that violates those rights is illegitimate and may be – and should be – overthrown.
The Declaration talked about the equality of men. Equality, in a Marxist sense, is utter nonsense. We are equal in God’s eyes and in the eyes of just laws, but in no other way. Equality is not sameness. Men and women are different. Races have different traits. Individuals are stronger, faster, bigger, smaller, skinnier, better, worse, richer, more industrious, more honorable, more charitable, wiser, less intelligent, more talented, more capable, etc., than each other.
However, God created all of us. At birth, we each receive an inheritance of Liberty and free will which no government can rightly, justly, morally strip us of. These are natural rights – rights which no government has authority over. The purpose of government is to safeguard natural rights. Period.
This is the fundamental understanding that our Founding Fathers had. This is the context in which they wrote the U.S. Constitution and formed our great nation. They spelled out that if government ever overstepped these “self-evident” bounds, the People had not only a right, but a solemn duty, to abolish or change that government.
I now want to apply what we have learned today to the abortion debate. The Supreme Court is gearing up to potentially release an opinion that would not exactly overturn Roe v. Wade, but which would allow the states to decide for themselves. I think this is repugnant to the spirit and meaning of both the Declaration and the Constitution.
First in the list of rights declared to be self-evident, and which government is duty bound to protect, is life. Some among us repeat “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” without really thinking about it. If we believe these are rights, then how can we permit abortion? If life is a right, how can government, which is created for the purpose of securing our rights, deny that right to millions?
There is little difference between the atrocious institution of slavery and the infanticide of tens of millions of unborn men and women (in fact, more blacks have been destroyed through abortion than slavery in this country). Both deprive the individual of “life” in any meaningful sense. Without Liberty, life is meaningless. Without Liberty, there is no ability to pursue happiness. Before you can have Liberty or pursue happiness, however, you must have life. Without life, you have neither Liberty nor happiness.
Those who support the life-destroying scourge of abortion are enemies to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and America. This is not just another “political issue”; it is a defining principle dealing with the fundamental, natural, God-given rights of individuals. There is a right and a wrong on abortion as much as there is a right and a wrong about slavery, genocide, free speech, or the right of self-defense.
The U.S. government was created to defend natural rights, including the right to life. This is not the job of the states, though the states should be a secondary defense if the federal government neglects its duty. This is a federal, or national, issue. The federal Constitution, not the individual state constitutions, is the supreme law of the land. If the federal government has no jurisdiction to defend life in the states, then, in all honesty, please tell me why we even have a national government and a constitution.
The Declaration of Independence, which declared our right to life, was written by the representatives of the whole People. It is as good as gospel law for Americans. Remember what the Founding Fathers said in the Declaration, that if ANY government falls short of its mandate to secure the rights of life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its people, it is despotic and must be altered or abolished.
The feminists, liberals, and socialists who pretend to care about “equality” and Freedom are lying hypocrites if they reject an innocent human being’s right to live – the most fundamental of all rights and a necessary step in the equality process. If we are all equal, if no group is supposed to have greater privileges than another, and if the natural rights proclaimed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights supersede governmental authority and cannot be violated by individuals, state governments, or the federal government, then how can anyone rationalize abortion?
What say does the unborn child have in his own life or over his own body? I though the mantra was “my body, my choice.” What say does the child have in the matter of his right to life? In complete seriousness, has anyone asked the little human being if he or she wants their body torn apart and their brains vacuumed out by a heartless medical butcher with the consent of his unfeeling mother? Were that same child to be born, sometimes mere minutes later, he would have an explicit, legal, and constitutional right to life, yet being inside the womb somehow allows his life to be snuffed out.
No one has a right to summarily end another human being’s life. A person may forfeit their right to life by taking the life of another person or committing treason or some heinous crime that violates the rights of another person, but, barring these exceptions, the right to life is to be held sacrosanct. This brings up the argument of when life beings. Yet, it’s not a serious argument at all. The science is settled. The science is irrefutable. The biology is clear, settled, firm, and unshakable.
Science has conclusively shot to high hell the Satanic notion that babies are mere “clump of cells” with no cognizance or that life begins at any other time than at conception. Scientifically, religiously, logically, mortal life begins only at conception and at no time after that. It doesn’t begin at 6 weeks, or 15 weeks, or 30 weeks. It doesn’t begin when the body comes out of the womb. It begins at conception and no serious scientist refutes this. If we admit that life begins at conception, it follows that life must also be protected from conception.
I repeat that the right to life is a right guaranteed by the Declaration and the Constitution. The Declaration explicitly champions the right to life and the Preamble to the Constitution explicitly states that its purpose is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” If babies do not have a right to life, then we older human beings don’t either. It either applies equally to everyone or it’s not a right.
Roe v. Wade is a bastardization of law, Liberty, and logic, to say nothing of conscience and morality. It is a demonic violation of the most fundamental of all God-given rights guaranteed by our founding documents. The judges usurped power, concocted a “right” out of whole cloth, and stripped young human beings of their implicit right to life.
The executive branch, Congress, and the states had in 1973, and have today, not only a right, but a duty, to reject Roe v. Wade and to champion the right to life. Today, the president could take a leaf out of President Andrew Jackson’s book and overrule Roe, declaring it his sworn duty to protect life. This moment, Congress could announce that Roe is null and void, rightly saying that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. Right now, any state in America could throw out abortion and defend life, invoking the natural rights of life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In America, we don’t take our principles from the courts, we take them from the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and they took them from natural law and the Bible. In America, polls and popularity don’t decide policy, law, or rights. It doesn’t matter how many feminists screech and howl or how many Antifa thugs march through the streets, the right to life is sacred and has been codified by U.S. law since 1776.
Defending Freedom is not a states’ rights issue; it is a human issue. Specifically, the right to life is one of the big-picture problems that the nation as a whole must face and must collectively solve. Life is a federal/national issue that the states do not have exclusive purview over, but one in which they may ratify, support, and confirm the People’s national representatives in safeguarding.
In all seriousness, dear reader, if the Constitution does not encompass the right to life, being one of the most fundamental rights, then what is its purpose? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and I submit to every rational mind that it authorizes its agents – those who raise their arm and swear to uphold it – to defend, protect, and preserve life. Abortion is a blatant violation of eternal law, natural law, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and science. It is human sacrifice. It is evil and must be stamped out.
If the Supreme Court refuses to undo Roe v. Wade nationally, eternal shame on them – and eternal shame on all government representatives and citizens at all levels who are too cowardly to stand up for the right to life. If the high court attempts to make it a state issue, they have abdicated their duty to uphold the Constitution and show their own cowardice. At least, if protecting life becomes a state issue, half of the nation will rise to the challenge and create pockets of life and Liberty. Sadly, however, the plague will not end, divine judgements will not be averted, and the Declaration of Independence and Constitution will slide further down the totem of importance.
As with life, so with any issue – government is designed to secure Liberty equally to all. When big issues are involved that impact humanity generally, the federal government has jurisdiction, such as in times of war or ensuring republican forms of governments to citizens in every states. These issues are usually explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. When something is not specifically stated therein, and if it is also not stated in the Declaration or in the “self-evident” precepts of natural law, the authority rests with the People acting in their individual states to decide.
Life is a fundamental human issue and is not a state issue. However, if the federal regime and its hijacked courts refuse to use their delegated power to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” then the People, acting either through the states or by themselves in their sovereign capacity, have the right and duty to alter or abolish their government and provide new forms and guards to secure their God-given natural rights. May we finally enforce the Declaration and truly champion life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
With the Supreme Court allegedly on the brink of overturning the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion that held that murdering babies was legit and legal, abortion advocates are losing their collective minds in a stunning show of what can only be termed demonic fanaticism. Think of it, thousands of people are belligerently bull horning in the streets and threatening violence, arson, and revolution because they believe their ability to terminate the lives of babies will be curtailed. How is this anything but demonic?
One dictionary defines “demonic” as “of, relating to, or suggestive of a demon: fiendish.” Another says that “demonic” means “wild and evil” and lists the following as related terms: abhorrent; amoral; antichrist; obscene; outrageous; unconscionable; unethical; and unprincipled. All of the above apply to the desperate, militant, breathless baby-killers parading in the streets. To them, sacrificing babies is akin to a religious ritual.
“The Satanic Temple began in 2013 and has launched a number of political actions and lawsuits related to the separation of church and state. Texas is home to four congregations of The Satanic Temple, more than any other state. . . .
“The Satanic Temple’s seven tenets include the belief that “one’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.” It interprets state restrictions on abortion access as a burden on this sincerely held religious belief.
“In 2015, The Satanic Temple began a series of lawsuits against the state of Missouri, where women seeking abortions must view sonograms and then review a booklet stating, “The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.” After this, the women must spend 72 hours considering their decision before finally receiving an abortion.
“The Satanic Temple argued that this practice was an unconstitutional effort by the state to impose its religious views onto vulnerable women. Furthermore, it claimed that under Missouri’s RFRA law, Satanic women could not be forced to comply with these procedures. Instead of answering whether RFRA protected members of The Satanic Temple from abortion restrictions, the court dismissed these cases on procedural grounds.
Twisted logic from The Satanic Temple
“The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that . . . [the woman] . . . had no legal standing to sue. The Satanic Temple appealed this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear it.
“To prevent similar rulings, ministers for The Satanic Temple created an “abortion ritual,” in which a woman affirms her own autonomy, obtains an abortion, and then concludes the ritual.
“Since abortion is part of the ritual, The Satanic Temple argues, subjecting a woman to a waiting period is akin to the government interfering with a baptism or communion.”
The Satanic Temple is perhaps an extreme example of abortion advocacy, yet they are one of the foremost organizations using this argument of “religious Liberty,” so they are fair game. There is nothing quite like quoting straight from the horse’s mouth, though, and so I turn to the group’s own words. The Satanic Temple issued a deliberately chilling video proclamation in which they stated the religious character of baby slaughter:
“The Satanic Temple’s rituals adhere to our tenets which value science and assert bodily autonomy. As an expression of our deeply held beliefs, The Satanic Temple has created a religious ritual which involves terminating an unwanted pregnancy during the first trimester. The religious abortion ritual involves the recitation of our third and fifth tenets, along with a personal affirmation during the abortion procedure. The ritual provides spiritual comfort and affirms bodily autonomy and self-worth. The Satanic Temple proudly announces to all of its followers that within the states that have enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act religiously performed abortions are exempt from legal requirements that are not medically necessary . . . Thyself is thy master. Hail Satan!”
“Bodily autonomy” is a curious phrase. Does your “autonomy” apply to another person? Does your “autonomy” give you the right to decide life and death for another human being? If not, then how can a mother be said to have “autonomy” over the body of the baby inside her? Wouldn’t the very concept of “bodily autonomy” protect the unborn and prevent their mothers from ending their lives by interfering with their bodily autonomy?
And isn’t it intriguing that these Satanists who claim to be pro-science actually deny science by ignoring the scientific verity that babies are living human beings from conception? But these facts are inconvenient. After all, “thyself” is your only god. Well, except Satan, of course.
Apart from these self-avowed Satanists, the abortion protestors, media talking heads, and Establishment types who are losing their minds, are behaving like literal demons. Some of the asinine things said thus far by commentators include the following.
“The Christian nationalist right is building Gilead in America and the Supreme Court is their deliberately, relentlessly, Federalist Society, Bush, Trump, McConnell-created weapon. And this is just the start. Buckle up women, LGBTQ people and people of color. We’re all on the menu.”
This is unhinged frothing at the mouth that is incoherent and false. Firstly, to claim Bush and McConnell are on the same team as Trump is laughable at best. Second, how can the Supreme Court be said to be “right,” let alone “nationalist”? Third, what could possibly draw a connection between defending the lives of innocent babies and going after women, gays, and black racialists? These types of two-bit commentators are spewing anything in hopes that something will stick.
“In American law, that’s all it takes to renege and turn the clock back on nearly 50 years of precedent. In this light, the leak months in advance of Roe’s formal demise shouldn’t be a surprise, but confirmation that the Republican-captured Supreme Court is a political institution that responds to the vicissitudes of the electorate. Trump himself told us so when he predicted, quite presciently, that his appointments to the court as president would overturn Roe “automatically.” People laughed at Trump for this procedural imprecision at the time—no precedent can be wiped out in the blink of an eye. But not so those voters who placed their faith in him and were perhaps willing to turn a blind eye to his racism, misogyny, and overall unfitness for office so that he may deliver for them “two or perhaps three justices” who would bring an end to what they believe is the intentional murder of preborn life. Promises made, promises kept.
“With this reactionary majority locked down, the writing in the Alito draft was already on the wall. He is part of the same five-justice bloc, minus Roberts, that for the past eight months has not lifted a finger to stop Texas and other states from unleashing their own residents on people needing abortion care in their borders—effectively ending access for many people and forcing thousands to cross state lines to seek abortion and other reproductive health care. The justices’ antipathy toward abortion in the Texas case—as well as the expected end of Roe in Mississippi—has already created a free-for-all where almost all abortion restrictions are on the table. When Alito says that the issue of abortion can now return to the states, what he’s really signaling to the antiabortion faithful is that this may not be a state issue at all—but a brave new world where everything from out-of-state vigilantism to restrictions on mail-order medication abortion can be legalized. And why not, maybe even a national ban is in the offing.
“We don’t have to wait until late June, when the final edict on Roe is expected, for that reality to take hold. That future is now. The only question is what, if anything, those who are reading and dissecting the Supreme Court’s draft opinion can do today to blunt the trauma and uncertainty five justices are already inflicting on the millions of people who have ordered their lives around the idea of reproductive freedom.”
How sad is it that, like Cain who murdered Able and rejoiced that he was “free” (Moses 5:33), these baby-killers find “freedom” in murder! Notice how this writer hits many of the usual talking points: Trump’s so-called “racism” and “misogyny;” the claim Trump broke laws; the cry of anti-abortion “vigilantism;” the idea of Republican bias; the decades’ old refrain that Republicans are hurting and traumatizing “millions” of people unjustly; the well-worn socialist idea that the American electorate is too stupid to know what’s good for them; etc.
Less eloquently, but every bit as stupidly, Ian Millhiser of VoxTweeted various insane and incoherent things such as:
“Seriously, shout out to whoever the hero within the Supreme Court who said ‘f*ck it! Let’s burn this place down.”
“The Supreme Court is one of the most malignant institutions in American history.”
“It seems wrong that Donald Trump tried to overthrow the United States government, and we just let the people he placed on the bench continue to make decisions that bind the government Trump failed to unlawfully remove.”
“One fun fact about the Supreme Court is that a third of its members were appointed by a professional con man who received nearly 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton, and then tried to stage a coup.”
“If I were a right-wing bot whose goal was to undermine liberal democracy in the United States and ensure that fascism prevails, all of my tweets today would be about how no one should vote for Democrats because they haven’t done enough to protect abortion rights.”
“The draft Roe opinion appears to be as bad as expected, but I’m glad it leaked because this leak will foster anger and distrust within the irredeemable institution that is the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The only statement here with any merit is the second one. But isn’t it interesting that this shrill leftist only condemns the Supreme Court when it tries to take away his ability to murder babies? “How dare they protect babies! Let’s burn this place down!” That’s the mentality of these savage abortion sycophants.
Finally, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s lead legal expert, gave the following historically-ignorant observation:
“What this means is that a constitutional right that women have had in this country for 50 years, pushing three generations, is gone. It is gone overnight and it is now up to the politicians and this idea that it is simply returning the abortion rights to the states is not really correct because what we are seeing in these states that are banning abortion is they are reaching out, they are trying to ban abortion in the whole country.”
What, pray tell, is a “constitutional right”? There are either natural, or God-given, rights, or none at all. Government can’t bestow rights. The Constitution doesn’t give them. Rights don’t come from dusty documents. In fact, the Constitution came into existence to protect the rights over which the War for Independence was fought.
You’ll recall at least some of these sacred rights if you remember Thomas Jefferson’s immortal pronouncement:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
How can something be a “constitutional right” if it denies and contradicts the Declaration of Independence? The Declaration clearly says that life is one of our unalienable rights. So is the ability to pursue one’s own happiness in an atmosphere of Freedom. None of this is possible if you rob a person of his or her life and chance for progression. Killing a baby is killing his rights – the very rights that America was founded on.
Not only did the liberal media flare up, but the streets erupted so suddenly you may be forgiven if you thought the protest was pre-planned. Hundreds of protestors showed up at the Supreme Court building with their corny and unoriginal slogans on signs, chanting their sing-song Marxist phrases and demanding their so-called “right” to kill babies. Five of the slogans I have seen so far in videos and photos said:
“My body, my choice.” “Hands off our uteruses.” “Against abortion? Get a vasectomy.” “Women’s bodies are more regulated than guns.” “Doctors not doctrine.”
One wonders if these people have ever stopped to ponder the real meanings of their signs. The answer must be a resounding “no,” for, if they had, and they possessed any sense of honor, they would have never appeared in public holding them. Let’s look at each of these mentioned above.
Demonic fanaticism on full display
First is “my body, my choice.” This is the fundamental cry of pro-abortion advocates. They utter it as if it has any logical leg to stand on or as if it conveys any sense of morality, justice, and uprightness. It has become something of a religious mantra, repeated mindlessly ad nauseum. Sadly for the baby-butchers, this is the easiest trope to trounce.
The idea “my body, my choice” is only valid if we are talking about only one body. If only a single, lone body is involved, perhaps we can sit down and have a discussion. However, abortion obviously involves more than one body. In fact, the act involves not one, not two, but three individuals and two bodies.
The three individuals are the mother, father, and baby. Feminist and abortion advocates screech about “equality,” yet seek to deny men the right to have an equal say as to whether their children – their flesh and blood – are allowed to live. Where’s the equality in that? If equality was factored in, women would not have a monopoly on deciding what happens to a child which, despite sharing her womb for a short period of time, is not her exclusive property or purview, but which is the shared responsibility of the father.
As for the bodies, you can’t honestly repeat “my body, my choice” and have anyone over the age of 2 buy it. Everyone knows that the body of a separate individual – a small baby, yet a person with all the potential and possibilities that the rest of us have – is involved besides, separate, and apart from the mother’s body. The distinction between the mother’s and baby’s bodies was perhaps explained best by famed heart surgeon and religious leader President Russell M. Nelson:
“When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.”
He further stated that:
“Nearly all legislation pertaining to abortion considers the duration of gestation. The human mind has presumed to determine when “meaningful life” begins. In the course of my studies as a medical doctor, I learned that a new life begins when two special cells unite to become one cell, bringing together 23 chromosomes from the father and 23 from the mother. These chromosomes contain thousands of genes. In a marvelous process involving a combination of genetic coding by which all the basic human characteristics of the unborn person are established, a new DNA complex is formed. A continuum of growth results in a new human being. Approximately 22 days after the two cells have united, a little heart begins to beat. At 26 days the circulation of blood begins. To legislate when a developing life is considered “meaningful” is presumptive and quite arbitrary, in my opinion.”
Biologically, scientifically, medically, life begins at conception. That is not debatable. The science really is settled on this matter. There is no other point at which learned men can identify the first flicker of life other than at that first joining of sperm and egg. Scripturally, life begins long before conception, but that is a matter slightly beyond our present scope.
As President, or, if you prefer, Doctor, Nelson said, abortion involves two bodies, two lives, two hearts, two heartbeats, two brains, two sets of organs, two sets of hands and feet, two unique blood types, two unique sets of finger prints, four eyes, two mouths, two heads, two spinal cords, two skeletons, and so forth. It is a bastardization of science, medicine, and reality to claim “my body, my choice.”
Woman, had your choice before you engaged in intercourse. You chose to use your body to perform an act that naturally, intentionally, and by design, creates life and brings another separate body into the world. Before this new body – a new human being – “comes into the world,” however, it inhabits your body for a brief time. Yet, it is another’s body nonetheless.
Please note, this new little body is not your body; it is your child’s body. And you have no right, no autonomy, and no sovereignty over it. Your choice was made when you chose to have sex. Your right to choose the consequence of that action ended then and there and makes your pithy slogan a ludicrous, hollow, and juvenile mockery of reality.
The next slogan is equally idiotic. Whose hands are on your uterus? Who is controlling your sex life? Are you so enslaved and servile that you are not the one in charge of your own sex drive and sex life? If you have the power to control whom you have sex with, you have the power to prevent “unwanted pregnancies” as well as abortion and the resultant conflict. Instead of chiding others for supposedly controlling your uterus, might I suggest learning a little self-control and getting ahold of your own sex drive and regulating who you have sex with – ideally a husband with whom you are wedded in conformity with God’s laws.
Slogan number three implies that only men oppose abortion and that it is men alone who can’t control themselves. As just noted, women have their own agency and have a right to say “no.” They don’t have to sleep with anyone – especially if they are not prepared to bear the responsibilities of motherhood that could likely result.
Furthermore, why should men have to get a vasectomy because women want to shirk their motherhood responsibilities? How does murdering your own offspring give you the right to control another person’s ability to procreate? Wouldn’t that contradict the other two slogans talked about already? And wouldn’t it be equally as easy for a woman to undergo an operation to prevent herself from having kids as for a man to endure one? While both options are immoral and unnecessary, it seems far worse to take a life than to tie your tubes or exercise sexual self-restraint.
The fourth slogan is patently absurd and uncategorically false. Felons, for instance, can’t have guns, yet they can have sex, get abortions, etc. You can’t buy a gun without jumping through bureaucratic hoops ranging from background checks to delay periods. Are there such government checks for women before they have intercourse? Are women prevented from entering banks, stadiums, schools, and other such places that armed individuals are often prohibited from? You can’t legally use a gun to kill people for no other reason than that you didn’t want them around anymore, yet a woman can legally kill her unborn child simply because she wants to. This non-comparison between women and guns is not only poorly thought out, but utterly non-existent.
The fifth and final slogan has already been refuted. Doctors – who supposedly follow the science – are bound to admit the personhood of unborn babies, that they are alive from conception, and that killing them is killing a unique, individual, living boy or girl. Yet, regardless of what doctors say, it really should be about doctrine. God’s commands should prevail in our lives. Even if we disregard God, however, we still have to deal with the Declaration of Independence which upholds our right to life. Roe v. Wade is an explicit violation of the Declaration of Independence and is blatantly anti-American.
The protestors at the Supreme Court building are more than logically flawed. They are also frothing at the mouth with demonic rage. Fulcrum7 published an aptly-titled article “Vicious Crowd At Supreme Court Protesting For Abortion With Demonic Influences.” In it, the author painted an excellent picture of the madness and malevolence of the pro-abortion protestors:
“I could hear the massive crowds chanting and screaming as I walked up Capitol Hill to the Supreme Court. Strident chants of “my body, my choice” and “abortion is healthcare” rang out into the beautiful spring evening. . . .
“Abortion protests are not uncommon in Washington, D.C. . . . .
“But tonight was different. A Monday evening report from POLITICO revealed that Roe v. Wade is most likely about to be overturned, and the anger and desperation from pro-abortion rights activists was palpable. . . .
“The crowd seemed to be almost entirely made up of pro-abortion protesters. The only pro-life group that I encountered was the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU). . . .
““Abortion is murder,” the small knot of PAAU members chanted into megaphones, completely surrounded by pro-abortion rights protesters screaming curse words at them.
“I pushed my way through the crowd until I could see and film what was going on. One girl dressed in denim while sporting both a mask and sunglasses flung water at the PAAU members. It splashed a man next to me, who looked annoyed and surprised.
““*** you, *** you!” screamed another masked woman, waving her middle finger at the pro-life activists. Two lanky young men followed her example, aggressively thrusting middle fingers toward the PAAU members and screaming, “*** you, *** you!”
“Their eyes were wild with rage, and for a moment I wondered if they would assault the PAAU members. It seemed surreal to see these very typical-looking Washington, D.C., men behaving in such a manner in broad daylight. . . .
“Amid the angry noise, I surveyed the teeming horde of pro-abortion rights protesters, filming them to capture their hostile passion.
“One young woman in a red crop top was chanting, her eyes half closed as if in a trance, “I will not be subjugated! I will not be subjugated!” Her face and body were covered in paint and hand prints. . . .
““Whose streets?” asked a woman with a megaphone. “Our streets!” the protestors responded. . . .
“The megaphone sirens continued to wail above the crowd as they moved in closer toward Hurley, who proclaimed his faith in God.
““I don’t believe in your Jesus. Your Jesus isn’t real. F*** your Jesus, f*** your Jesus,” screamed the large black woman in green with the megaphone. “Christ is not here, baby, I’m right here, and right here today, I can get an abortion. I can get an abortion.”
““Pack it up,” she told him repeatedly. “You are actively trying to take away my rights as a woman. You do not have the right to say what I can do with my body. That’s not your choice. We do not believe in the same thing!” . . . .
““Where’s your God now?” jeered a man close to my shoulder. I turned and stared at him, shocked by his malicious tone.”
Read the full article for more of this tale. This is just a small taste. The people on the ground right now are malevolent, frothing maniacs. They are unmasked – everyone now knows how desperately they desire to murder babies and end human life. Rule of law doesn’t matter to them. They have come to believe that might makes right and they are willing to use their might to force the matter.
What is this other than mob mentality? We are dealing with a group of radical, enraged baby-killers – people who would burn down the government for their “right” to end human life. When you are so past feeling, no atrocity is off limits in your mad dash to get your way and be on top.
If the Supreme Court goes through with their present decision to essentially overturn Roe and kick the issue to the states (it is not a state issue, as I will discuss in an upcoming article), the Marxians among us will riot. Even if they don’t actively burn down cities a la Antifa and BLM, their rage will be palpable. And how sad is it that such rage can be engendered by a ban on infanticide!
At times, fortunately, abortions go awry and the would-be-human-sacrifice survives. Such was the case of Melissa Ohden. You can read about her story here. The takeaway is the insight she shares regarding how an abortion survivor feels – the terrible emotional toll of abortion. She explained her feelings this way:
“I felt ashamed. I was embarrassed to have survived an abortion. . . .
“I must not be loved. . . .
“There is this little piece of us that feels like we are so unworthy, that we are so broken, that there’s no way anybody would love us if they actually knew who we were. . . .
“[abortion advocates are] protesting our lives somehow being protected.”
How can anyone look at a testimony like this and try to deny that a human being – not a mere clump of cells – is involved in the dastardly act of abortion? The little boy or girl being terminated has a brain that, with a little time and training, can compute numbers, create masterpieces, reason, debate, and so many other wonders. He or she has a heart that can feel love and hate, compassion and callousness, joy and sadness, ecstasy and pain. All the rationalizing aside, he or she, like Melissa Ohden, is a real person with a real right to life.
It must be draining to realize that your mother, the one who is supposed to love and care for you above all others, attempted to kill you, end your life, and snuff out your existence. Yet, despite these types of sentiments from survivors like Melissa, the protestors still protest with their selfish slogans “my body, my choice,” never stopping to think of the special, unique, amazing, hope-filled, Heaven-sent children they are destroying.
This brings us back one last time to the present as millions are up in arms about the leaked information regarding the Supreme Court’s possible overturning of Roe v. Wade. These people, so unfeeling, so unthinking, so heartless, are enraged that anyone would dare prevent them from murdering children. More to the point, they are catatonic thinking that they might not be able to fornicate at will.
These amoral people want to be able to sleep around with impunity. They want to rid themselves of responsibility. They want to shirk adulthood, fatherhood, motherhood, and real life. They want to remain promiscuous whoremongers whose only thought is selfish pleasure and hedonistic living. Doing away with the ability to get rid of “unwanted” pregnancies, then, is an imperative in their listless worldview.
“But,” you cry, “not all people pursue abortions because they want to. Some of them are victims of rape, incest, or medical problems!” You are correct. However, less than 1% of abortions fall into these tragic categories and, you may be surprised, I would allow for some abortions under certain carefully-define circumstances in these given situations. The other 99% are medically and morally unnecessary. They are called “elective” abortions for a reason, the very word implying choice and free will. But is abortion the only choice? No!
Truly, women have a choice. In the first place, they don’t need to have sex until they are ready to care for and raise a child. They choose to procreate. Men and women are not evolved beasts ruled by instinct and impulse. We don’t go into heat and have to mate with the first person of the opposite sex that comes our way. That is a nihilistic, Marxian, Darwinist viewpoint. Instead, we are created, intelligent beings with reason, agency, and free will. Humans are smart enough to know from a very young age that the act of procreation produces children. And they are endowed with sufficient Freedom of choice to choose self-control.
Second, women don’t need to terminate the pregnancy – they simply want to avoid responsibility. If they truly can’t cope with the responsibilities of motherhood, and their partner can’t handle being a father, there are adoption agencies ready and willing to help. There are millions who want children but, for one reason or another, cannot have them. Women who don’t want children could give so much joy to other women who do want them by giving their children in adoption. That is the humane, human, healthy choice.
Those who are crying for abortion are wild and savage like animals which devour their young. They either don’t understand how horrific abortion is or simply don’t care. They clearly have never watched videos or seen pictures of poor bloodied babies ripped into pieces by abortionists. If they have seen these images and yet still support this barbarity, their hearts are hard and cold. They also obviously ignore the science which confirms beyond any doubt that babies in the womb sense the abortion before it happens and feel the extreme pain inflicted upon their tiny bodies, minds, and souls.
How can people do this to their young? How can civilized people advocate it? It is barbarism! It is demonic! It is evil! We sometimes think of the ancient Hebrews throwing their children into the flames of the false god Moloch as a horror and atrocity. And that it is. Yet, how is it any worse than the manner, scale, and scope of modern infanticide? Does the fact that it happens at a “clinic” really make it any better?
At least 70 million unborn babies have been slaughtered in abortion clinics in the United States since Roe v. Wade was foisted upon us in 1973. It constitutes one of the greatest massacres in human history, rivaling, even surpassing, the obscenely high number butchered by Lenin, Stalin, and the Soviet dictators. People condemn Hitler’s almost entirely exaggerated and overly-hyped “Holocaust” of some 6 million, yet they don’t bat an eye at the 70 million very real babies holocausted by Planned Parenthood and its co-conspirators (the real “Holocaust” death toll is probably around 150,000 from all causes, even according to many Jewish historians like Yad Vashem’s Shmuel Krakowsky and professional archivists at Auschwitz. Auschwitz’s resident experts have in fact been forced by pesky facts to formally reduce the alleged toll from 4 to a still high 1 million. The scholarly Holocaust Handbook series of books published by The Barnes Review is a must-read on the subject).
The people who control the narrative in the media, Hollywood, and academia play up their favorite historical boogeymen, yet ignore, downplay, or openly defend, the abortion genocide that has eliminated generations of unborn Americans, to say nothing of countless millions of Russians, Chinese, and Indians. These same gatekeepers perhaps aren’t aware that their ideological forbears in the Soviet Union were the first to legalize abortion. If you didn’t know it already, now you know that abortion-on-demand came from Soviet Russia and was part of the communist strategy to Sovietize and subjugate a nation.
And, yet again, as we invoke the communists as the godfathers of modern infanticide, we realize how demonic the abortion movement is. This is a mass movement spawned by the greatest mass murderers in history. This is a movement of proud anti-Christs. It is a movement of hedonists, selfish sexual deviants, political hacks, leftists, anarchists, avowed Satanists, adults with arrested development, and disturbed people with blood on their hands.
While it is true that some good women have been bullied or, at times, forced, into having abortions, or were young and desperate enough to not truly be cognizant of the enormity of their crimes, these are exceptions. The majority of those who march in the street, wave banners, and occupy the Supreme Court, are people like I have described – people who seem possessed with a demonic zeal for baby-murder.
To these individuals, however, there is a remedy. The remedy is repentance. While the Lord does not wink at sin and pat the unrepentant on the back, He is willing to forgive the penitent soul. It is hard to repent of murder, and things so very like it, such as abortion, but the Lord would say to those guilty of such heinous deeds the same thing He said to the woman taken in adultery: “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:1-12). If one heeds the invitation, reforms his or her life according to Gospel covenants, and sincerely tries to follow the Lord, repentance is possible. No one is destined for hell – Heaven is a possibility in every human being’s future because of the Redemption of Jesus Christ.
It is historic moments like the one we are witnessing unfold at the Supreme Court that give us all a chance to reflect and to adjust course. If we find ourselves astray, we can change. It’s not too late. If we find ourselves on the right side, we can redouble our efforts and work to bring about much good and to be a light to the world. I challenge you to firmly root yourself in Gospel soil, rejecting baby slaughter and demonic infanticide, protecting the God-given rights of every person born or unborn, and standing up for what is right even when it is unpopular, politically incorrect, and difficult.
Zack Strong, May 4, 2022
Read my other articles on abortion, global genocide, and the miracle of life here:
Civilization is in crisis. Our moral compass is haywire and we have wandered far off the correct path. Few acts exemplify this confusion of ethics better than elective abortion – the willful murder of one’s offspring. Abortion is the ultimate sign that society has become past feeling.
“Past feeling” is a phrase used in scripture to describe those whose hearts have hardened and who have left the Gospel path. In his letter to the Ephesian Saints, the Apostle Paul gave this encouragement:
“[W]alk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
“Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
“Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness” (Ephesians 4:17-19).
Paul reminded his fellow Christians that disciples of the Master cannot walk as others do. We are meant to be a “peculiar people” (1 Peter 2:9). When we embrace the Savior’s covenant path, we embrace a new and higher way of life and forever leave behind old habits and corrupt ways of thought and behavior. Those who reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ alienate themselves “from the life of God.” This self-alienation comes because of ignorance, blindness of heart, and sin. A symbol of this alienation is that people become “past feeling.”
Those who are “past feeling” are those who have “their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4:2). They have willfully rebelled against God and His laws to such an extent that they become numb to the Holy Spirit and can no longer properly hear or understand His quiet and subtle promptings. They are those who “are without God in the world” and who “have gone contrary to the nature of God” (Alma 41:11). All of us can slip into this state of unfeeling if we are not careful and if we do not guard ourselves against enemy interference.
A person who is “past feeling” sees the world differently and abnormally. Up is down. Black is white. Evil is good. This tragic state of affairs is a direct fulfillment of Isaiah’s ancient prophecy that people would “call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)
Because their consciences are seared, they cannot reliably make moral judgment calls. They are not in tune with the Holy Spirit of God. A wise man gave an analogy about hearing the voice of the Holy Ghost. He first compared the process to using an old radio set to hone in on the proper signal and then observed:
“In terms of modern communication, crystal radio sets helped us emerge from the dark ages of communication. With advanced technology, cellular phones are used for much of the communication in our time. Occasionally, however, we find dead spots where the signal coming to a cell phone fails. This can happen when the cell phone user is in a tunnel or a canyon or when there is other interference.
“So it is with divine communication. The still, small voice, though still and small, is very powerful. It “whispereth through and pierceth all things.” But like my old crystal set, the message may be there but we fail to pick it up. Perhaps something in our lives prevents us from hearing the message because we are “past feeling.” We often put ourselves in spiritual dead spots—places and situations that block out divine messages. Some of these dead spots include anger, pornography, transgression, selfishness, and other situations that offend the Spirit” (President James E. Faust, “Did You Get the Right Message?” General Conference, April, 2004).
Using a similar analogy, Boyd K. Packer, who was a fearless defender of the faith against the forces of cultural depravity, warned:
“The world grows increasingly noisy. . . .
“This trend to more noise, more excitement, more contention, less restraint, less dignity, less formality is not coincidental nor innocent nor harmless.
“The first order issued by a commander mounting a military invasion is the jamming of the channels of communication of those he intends to conquer” (President Boyd K. Packer, “Reverence Invites Revelation,” General Conference, October, 1991).
Satan is the arch-enemy of mankind. He is the commanding general of the forces of wickedness. He is father of all lies. In order to get us to believe his harmful deceptions, he first has to jam our communication lines. He has to disrupt the flow of subtle messages from the Holy Spirit to our individual spirits. He does this through at least three methods: 1) Luring us into sin; 2)encouraging our neglect; and 3), convincing us of false ideas.
Sin is the most obvious way we disrupt our channels of communication. Whether through indulgence in pornography, substance abuse, dishonesty, pride, greed, adultery, or unwarranted violence, sin causes the Holy Spirit to flee. The Holy Spirit is, as the title suggests, holy. A holy being cannot and will not remain in a filthy environment. If you pollute and stain your soul, you drive the Holy Spirit out. The moment you begin to clean up the figurative mess, however, He rushes back in and helps you take out the trash.
Next, I use an analogy to talk about how neglect weakens our communication lines. If we do not charge our phone’s battery and it dies, we cannot use it to make or receive calls. It doesn’t matter if it is the latest and greatest version of the iPhone or an old flip-phone. Without a charged batter, you simply can’t make or receive calls or texts. Through neglect, we figuratively allow our spiritual batteries to die. Our spiritual muscles become atrophied overtime unless we stretch and use them. Rusty spiritual communication lines are certainly a factor in people becoming past feeling.
Thirdly, adopting false notions such as the anti-Christ concept of organic evolution, the Devilish dogmas of communism, or the idea that killing one’s children is acceptable extinguishes the influence of the Holy Ghost in your life. You cannot simultaneously harbor contradictory worldviews. As the Lord taught:
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24).
We might be sincere. We might really believe an idea. But ultimately we cannot believe two contradictory principles. They cancel each other out. We cannot stand on both sides of the dividing line between good and evil. We either believe the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or we don’t.
For example, we simply cannot believe that man evolved from a lower species because it has been revealed: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). To believe the idea of organic evolution is to believe either that the Genesis account of creation is fraudulent or that God is something lesser than man.Both suppositions are false and would nullify the entire Gospel of Jesus Christ. They undercut the profound reality that we are the literal children of our Father in Heaven.
By the same token,we cannot believe in the command “thou shalt not kill” and also think elective abortion – the unnecessary and voluntary killing of a child – is fine and dandy. Either we believe that we have no right to kill another unless in self-defense or to punish one who has forfeited his right to life through the malicious violation of another’s rights, or we believe that we have a right to kill. There is no middle ground. There is no third position. Either humans have a right to destroy the lives of their children or they do not. Since the Gospel of our Redeemer teaches quite clearly in multiple places “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), it stands that to advocate killing – for any illegitimate reason – is contrary to the Gospel.
When we wander in sin, neglect our duties relative to God and our fellow men, or adopt false philosophies, we sear our conscience and jam our crucial lines of communication with God. As such, we become “past feeling” and we “quench” the Holy Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19). In this darkened state, we often gravitate towards greater darkness. It is the nature of things to be attracted to things that are similar. As a revelation states:
“For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:40).
When we become past feeling, we embrace those things that are devoid of spirit, life, and light because they are comfortable and familiar. Once we successfully silence the voice of our conscience and disrupt the communications from the Holy Ghost, we are led into hedonism. We live for ourselves and don’t care about others. Our creed in life becomes, “How does this benefit me?”
To carnal individuals, the responsibilities and self-sacrifice required in marriage and parenthood are burdensome. Self-centered women who value sex and carefree living over all other things naturally embrace abortion as a means of continuing their hedonistic lifestyles while avoiding the “inconvenience” of motherhood. Lustful men, too, encourage abortion so that they can avoid the duties of fatherhood and continue sleeping around and not thinking of anyone but themselves.
In my article “Abortionism – Cult of Death,” I quoted a LifeSiteNewspiece that hits the nail on the head. It explains the perverse rationale behind abortion:
““Abortionism” is essentially a philosophy that raises abortion to a sacred status, above all other democratic principles.
“. . . Abortion’s now-sacred status is symptomatic of something far more sinister: the sweeping success of the Sexual Revolution. So-called “sexual rights” are now considered to be the most important “rights” our society has, and take precedence over all other rights, regardless of how fundamental they are.”
A hedonistic and selfish society is one that almost has to adopt abortion. Unless they have carte blanche on removing any impediment to their libidinous lifestyle, even if that “impediment” is another human life, they will be forced to be responsible individuals who do what dutiful individuals have always done – find a mate, marry, and create a family. When a person’s conscience is seared and they have become numb and past feeling, however, they stop thinking straight. Their only consideration becomes how they can find pleasure and feed their ravenous animal desires.
People who are so past feeling that they only think about self-gratification are those who invent emotion-driven slogans like “pro-choice,” “women’s rights,” and “my body, my choice” to justify snuffing out the lives of unborn human beings – human beings with arms and legs, fingers and toes, skin and eyes, functioning organs and a heart beat.A pregnant woman’s choices do not involve her body alone – they involve the body of another developing, growing human being. Through sexual intercourse, they have voluntarily created this life. Once that decision is made, they have no right to cancel it out because doing so terminates the life of a separate, unique human being – a son or daughter of Almighty God.
Think of how ghastly abortion really is. The very idea of a mother willfully killing her children is repugnant and disgusting to anyone who is not past feeling. Anyone with a functioning moral compass knows that elective abortion – that is, the unnecessary and wholly voluntary termination of the life of another human being for selfish purposes – is not only wrong, but evil.
We are frequently told that women are much more emotionally prescient than men. I suppose that a well-grounded woman has better motherly instincts than a man. Why shouldn’t she? She’s a woman and women were appointed to the holy and high calling of motherhood. However, I question the popular notion that women are more in tune than men when I see thousands of women in the streets marching for their alleged “right” to mutilate and kill their babies. When I see thousands of feminist women demanding, sometimes violently, the “right” to commit infanticide, it disgusts me.
No one has a “right” to kill babies. That is not a “right;” that is murder. It is heartless and evil. And simply because a human being has not yet developed as completely as another does not give anyone the right to kill him. If we use that perverse and flawed logic, we could say that children one, two, three, or four years old who have not matured yet – either physically or mentally – can be killed, too. Don’t think I’m being facetious. After-birth abortion – that is, the murder of already born children – has been advocated by abortion extremists throughout the world.
A rationale for after-birth abortion (i.e. murder) was given by two people clearly past feeling:
“[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. . . . [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus . . . rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk” (Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, in William Saletan, “After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide,” Slate, March 12, 2012).
What Giubilini, Minerva, and all those who think like them, want is society to allow them to murder children for their own convenience. To disguise the fact that this is murder, they try to use medical terminology. But infanticide by any other name is still infanticide. It is human sacrifice on the altar of the Evil One.
Let me be clear: I am not referring to the less than 1% of abortion cases involving rape, incest, or severe medical issues. I’m speaking of elective, voluntary, willful abortion. Elective abortion is, by definition, never necessary. It is an unnecessary medical procedure whose purpose is not to save but to destroy. It is the deliberate execution of another human being. It is the intentional taking of life.
I repeat: You do not have a “right” to take another person’s life – even if their body happens to be temporarily inside of you. To reason that you have a “right” to kill is to admit that you are past feeling. And for a mother of all people to flippantly say, “My body, my choice” (i.e. “I can kill my children and there’s nothing you can do about it”), is not only delusional, but reprehensible in the extreme.
Don’t be fooled by the deceptive Marxian language about “rights,” “equality,” and “choice.” These emotion-laden words are meant to get you to lower your guard and accept things which your sensitive spirit knows are wrong. If you let your guard down long enough, you can adopt so much of that which is evil that you become past feeling and join those who are openly rebelling against God.
The great Christian leader, Boyd K. Packer, once said:
“World leaders and court judges agree that the family must endure if we are to survive. At the same time, they use the words freedom and choice as tools to pry apart the safeguards of the past and loosen up the laws on marriage, abortion, and gender. In so doing, they promote the very things which threaten the family. . . .
“When we speak plainly of divorce, abuse, gender identity, contraception, abortion, parental neglect, we are thought by some to be way out of touch or to be uncaring. Some ask if we know how many we hurt when we speak plainly. Do we know of marriages in trouble, of the many who remain single, of single-parent families, of couples unable to have children, of parents with wayward children, or of those confused about gender? Do we know? Do we care?
“Those who ask have no idea how much we care; you know little of the sleepless nights, of the endless hours of work, of prayer, of study, of travel—all for the happiness and redemption of mankind.
“Because we do know and because we do care, we must teach the rules of happiness without dilution, apology, or avoidance. That is our calling” (President Boyd K. Packer, “The Father and the Family,” General Conference, April, 1994).
Every soul is precious to God – and none more than those of innocent children who are pure and sinless, having come straight from His presence. He is the literal Father of all who come into mortality. We are His special sons and daughters. He surely weeps as He watches His children misuse their agency to literally butcher and kill each other – and then to justify it by saying it’s their “right.”
As Christians, we have a duty to denounce evil and promote goodness. We have a duty to follow the commandments and to use our influence, great or small, to thwart Satan’s plan – a plan which involves persuading people to kill their own children. We must not allow words like “choice” to disarm us or dissuade us from doing what is right.
“Thou shalt not kill.” This is the command. A woman’s voluntary decision to sleep with a man and risk becoming pregnant does not negate the Lord’s command, nor does it negate a human being’s right to live. It is not an assault on Freedom of choice to prohibit elective abortion. Rather, it is a protection of our God-given rights, chief among which is the right of life. Those who cannot yet defend themselves enjoy the same right to live and breathe as you do. If not, then we live in a savage, might-makes-right, Darwinistic mire.
Our civilization can hardly be considered civilized when we take into account the 70+ million innocent babies whose lives we’ve destroyed in a brutal and merciless holocaust. The millions of babies who have died in horrible agony as their little bodies were literally torn apart and then vacuumed out of their mother’s womb would tell you, if they could, that they wanted to live; that they had a right to live; that it was their body and their choice to live, grow, experience earth life, and be held by a loving mother. Is that too much too ask?
To those who are past feeling, anything that prevents their full hedonistic self-gratification is too much to ask. The anguish of butchered babies means nothing to the self-absorbed who reject eternal law. Those whose hearts have been hardened and minds darkened to such an extent that they ruthlessly champion their so-called “right” to murder human beings have marked themselves as enemies to humanity, to our God-given rights, and to the Liberty vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States.
It is therefore the duty of every right-thinking individual – especially every Christian – who is not past feeling and who can still recognize the sweet influence of the Holy Spirit, to stand up in defense of the defenseless. It is our sacred responsibility not only to “be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), but to ensure that the right of life is extended to all those spirits whom our Father in Heaven desires to send into mortality. We must, as our Master did, go about doing good (Acts 10:38). And what cause is of more worth than defending the right of life of the most needy, innocent, and worthy among us?
Dear reader, abortion is evil. It is little more than coldblooded murder. It is a symptom of a spiritual sickness far worse than the hyped Coronavirus or smallpox. One thing is certain: An individual, group, or society that tolerates the slaughter of their infants is past feeling. God help us to repent. God help us to properly value life. And God help us to feel again!
Cultural Marxism is at the root of the chaos we see in the world today. Feminismand LGBT mania, for instance,are communist front movements. The entire spectrum of anti-traditional trends has been promoted by the communist conspiracy since day one. Russia picked up the Marxist-feminist standard with the advent of Bolshevism and has carried it ever since. The purpose of today’s article is to obliterate the prevalent notion that Russia is a family-friendly “bastion of traditionalism” and share the truth that Russia is the true home of modern feminism.
I can’t express how dismayed I am every time I see a self-proclaimed traditionalist, or a fellow Christian, refer to Russia in glowing terms. In “trad” social media groups and on traditionalist pages and websites, I routinely encounter people parroting Moscow’s propaganda about how “traditional” Russia is, how “feminine” the women are, how Russia is a “bastion of masculinity,” how there is a Christian “revival” occurring, and how wonderful Vladimir Putin is. Each and every point just mentioned flies in the face of the facts and is an inversion of reality.
I will focus primarily on the first three of the five points listed. Before discussing the first item, perhaps we should address we mean by “traditionalism.” Apart from the obvious definition that traditionalism means upholding tradition, regardless of what that tradition is, the sense in which the word is used today is defined by Google as “the theory that all moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation passed on by tradition, human reason being incapable of attaining it.”
This is an accurate enough definition, though in popular parlance it usually refers to culture and families. Traditionalism is a culture. It is a mentality and philosophy. It is a way of life. Those who live a “traditional” life are those who embrace marriage, create families, are sexually upright, reject degeneracy, and are generally conservative and modest in manners, dress, appearance, and behavior. Traditionalism is heavily linked – I would argue inexorably linked – to Christian values and Christian views on marriage, family, and morality.
With this in mind, is Russia a “bastion of traditionalism”? That is, does Russia, as a society, embrace the traditional or Christian perspective of marriage, family, sexual purity, modesty, and upright behavior? Any honest examination of the reality on the ground – and I have seen that reality firsthand as I lived in Russia for two years and spent my days talking with average folks and meeting inside their homes – must conclude that Russia is not a traditional society.
Let’s analyze a few statistics and points of history. We must remember that Russia was conquered by the alien Bolshevik forces in 1917. The first communist regime was approximately 85% Jewish. That is, it was virulently anti-Christian and devoid of morals. Christian chapels were looted and then literally demolished. Priests were shot. Nuns were raped. And Orthodox cathedrals all across Russia were converted into “Museums of Atheism,” complete with pagan statues and blatantly anti-Christ exhibits. This had the effect of hardening the people and they remain hardhearted towards religion in general to this day, only attending church on holidays to gawk and take pictures at the astonishingly fanatical and theatrical displays of Orthodox priests.
The rhyming caption reads: “Religion is Poison. Protect Children.” It shows the Christian woman as an old, oppressive hag thwarting the child’s progression and desire to go to school by trying to force an outdated religion on her.
One of the Soviets’ first orders of business was to abolish church marriage and institute in its place civil marriage. In fact, they desired to abolish marriage altogetherand began by replacing religious marriages with civil unionsand figured the institution would “wither away” of its own accord. Some Communist Party members even performed “red marriages” in mockery of traditional Christian marriage.
The institution of marriage was and is viewed by the Marxists as inherently oppressive. They see marriage as slavery. It was in The Communist Manifesto that these enemies of humanity had threatened the “abolition of the family” throughout the world. In harmony with this evil design, the Reds began destroying marriage in Russia. In 1925, a Soviet publication in boasted:
“Already the Soviet power has freed [marriage] from any superfluous shackles, has eliminated from it all religious and ecclesiastical survivals. . . . Marriage in Soviet legislation has ceased to be a prison” (Harold J. Berman, “Soviet Family Law in the Light of Russian History and Marxist Theory,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 56, Issue 1, 36, 1946).
Indeed, the communists made marriage an irrelevant and unnecessary formality of social life. Not just marriage, but the family as a whole was also targeted. After effecting their coup, the Bolsheviks set to work rewriting the Russian Family Code. Soviet Russia became the first nation to institute no-fault divorce. Divorce became so absurdly easy that you could actually send your spouse a letter in the mail saying “we’re divorced” and it was legally binding. In this sort of culture, marriage lost its sacred stature and divorce became the norm. They legalized abortion-on-demand and even subsidized it. And they did their best to collectivize children and make sure they were raised out of the home and in public schools where they could be indoctrinated in Marxist thought.
““On the abolition of marriage” and “On civil partnership, children and ownership” were among the first decrees of the Soviets in 1918. Church weddings were abolished, civil partnership introduced. Divorce was a matter of choice. Abortions were legalized. All of that implied a total liberation of family and sexual relations. This heralded the beginning of the raunchiest epoch in recent Russian history.
“A relaxed attitude to nudism was a vivid sign of the times: on the bank of the Moskva river, near the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour [which Stalin later blew up and replaced with the world’s largest swimming pool], a nude beach formed, the likes of which Western Europe could not have dreamed of at the time. . . .
“Rape by 1920s has become an epidemic. Quite strikingly, sexual violence towards former noble and bourgeois women was for a time even considered “class justice” among the proletarian males. Meanwhile, up to 20 percent of Russia’s male population had carried sexually-transmitted diseases . . . New laws on marriage and the overall atmosphere of breaking with the past encouraged promiscuity and casual approach to sex, unthinkable just years ago.
“Soviet society was breeding a dangerous generation of homeless orphans – official reports indicate that, by 1923, half of the children born in Moscow had been conceived out of wedlock, and many of them were abandoned in infancy.”
Yes, the Marxist sexual revolution was in full swing in Russia before most in the West had even contemplated it. It made havoc of families and homes and left, as you have seen and will see, a trail of societal desolation, broken hearts, and destroyed individuals in its wake – just as it was designed to do.
One of the best analyses of the family during this dark era of history is found in Paul Kengor’s superb book Takedown. I excise severalchoice paragraphs and share them with you:
“The disciples of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were committed to a revolution in family life, to a radical rupture in traditional relations between husband and wife and parents and children. Their first and most ardent practitioners, the Bolsheviks, followed the new faith with reckless abandon. . . .
“The Russian Orthodox Church’s long-standing prohibition against divorce was lifted by the Bolsheviks, leading to an explosion in divorce rates and utter havoc upon the Russian family. The dramatic combined effect of an immediate full liberalization of divorce laws and institution of “red weddings” became especially acute with the corresponding complete legalization of abortion in 1920, which was an unprecedented action anywhere in the world at the time. With those changes and the squashing of the Russian Orthodox Church and its guidance in marriage and families and children and education and more, Lenin and his allies dealt a severe blow to marital and family life in traditionally religious Russia. Right out of the gate, within the first months and years after they seized power, the Bolsheviks had initiated these jolts to society. . . . .
“In the Soviet Union and other subsequent communist countries that followed suit, the effect on marriage and the family was nothing short of catastrophic. The divorce rate skyrocketed to levels unseen inhuman history. In short order, it seemed as though everyone in Moscow had a divorce. One Russian man, painfully recalling his boyhood years from the late 1920s, stated, “The years 1929 to 1932 were the unhappiest period for my family. At that time there were many cases of divorce. Many of our acquaintances got divorced. It was like an epidemic.”
“The numbers grew worse decade by decade. As one study reported in the 1960s, “it is not unusual” to meet Soviet men and women who had been married and divorced upwards of fifteen times.
“The world certainly took notice of this domestic carnage. It looked to outsiders as if these communists really were looking to abolish marriage. In fact, it is instructive that the influential American magazine the Atlantic published a 1926 piece with the title “The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage.”
“If divorce was an epidemic in the USSR, abortion was a black plague.
“The Bolsheviks legalized abortion shortly after they seized power. Like divorce, it was a rare area where the communists allowed for individual freedom. Here they enacted full privatization. So long as the family went up in flames, it seemed, the communists would eagerly allow full and free private ownership of gasoline and matches – with no rationing. You weren’t free to own a farm or factory or business or bank account or go to church or print your own newspaper, but if you wanted a divorce or abortion, the sky was the limit in Bolshevik Russia.
“Having overthrown the ship of state and murdered the entire Romanov family in July 1918 – a fitting symbol to the coming war on the family – Vladimir Lenin made good on his June 1913 promise for an “unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions.” By 1920, abortion was fully and legally available and provided free of charge to Russian women. The number of abortions skyrocketed.
“By 1934 Moscow women were having three abortions for every live birth, shocking ratios that American women, in the worst, wildest throes of Roe v. Wade, never approached. The toll was so staggering that an appalled Joseph Stalin, the mass murderer, actually banned abortion in 1936, fearing a vanishing populace. . . .
“. . . A more progressive Nikita Khrushchev put things back in order in 1955, reversing Stalin’s abortion ban (and ramping up religious persecution), thus allowing rates to ascend to heights heretofore unwitnessed in human history. One authoritative source from the late 1960s reported, “One can find Soviet women who have had twenty abortions.”
“By the 1970s, the Soviet Union was averaging 7 to 8 million abortions per year, annihilating whole future generations of Russian children. (America, with a similar population, averaged nearer 1.5 million abortions per year after Roe was approved in 1973.)” (Paul Kengor, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, 32-35).
Let’s build on this information with a few more quotations. The next statements come from the 1926 article Kengor mentioned titled “The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage.” It informs us:
“The question whether marriage as an institution should be abolished is now being debated all over Russia with a violence and depth of passion unknown since the turbulent early days of the Revolution. . . .
“One must live in Russia to-day, amid the atmosphere of torment, disgust, and disillusionment that pervades sex relations, the chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that hover over the Russian family, to understand the reasons for this heated discussion, for these passionate pros and cons.
“When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other ‘bourgeois’ institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. ‘To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,’ declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term ‘illegitimate children.’ This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it. . . .
“At the same time a law was passed which made divorce a matter of a few minutes, to be obtained at the request of either partner in a marriage. Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.
Street children in Stalin’s USSR
“‘Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another,’ asserted an indignant woman delegate during the sessions of the Tzik. ‘They have children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support! (There are three hundred thousand bezprizorni or shelterless children in Russia to-day, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time, because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half of them are drug addicts and sex perverts. It is claimed by many Communists that the break-up of the family is responsible for a large percentage of these children.)
“The peasant villages have perhaps suffered most from this revolution in sex relations. An epidemic of marriages and divorces broke out in the country districts. Peasants with a respectable married life of forty years and more behind them suddenly decided to leave their wives and remarry. Peasant boys looked upon marriage as an exciting game and changed wives with the change of seasons. It was not an unusual occurrence for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions.”
This is only a snippet. I encourage you to read the full article at this link. I urge you to comprehend that communism brought about the destruction of the family in Russia – and that the wreckage can be seen everywhere today. And we need not try to divorce feminism from communism, for it was the Bolshevik revolutionary Inessa Armand (who also had an affair with Lenin) who proudly boasted:
“If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.”
Suffice it to say that Soviet Russia obliterated the family unit and destroyed the institution of marriage. Human life was made cheap and infanticide reached mind-boggling proportions. Marriage lost its significance and divorce became something everyone did. Even homosexuality and transgenderism flourished in the early days of the Soviet Union, with one Russian writer commenting that “members of the gay community were incredibly brave – some wore women’s dresses and corsets, wore their hair long and often looked like real women.”
Those who think the West introduced feminism and LGBT madness to Russia need to get their story straight – it was the other way around. We are just starting to really deal with those problems that have plagued Russia for over a century. The Bolsheviks deliberately exported these feminist ideas everywhere they could – particularly to the West –with the deliberate intention of weakening us so that we would succumb to their world revolution. It was the Jewish-Marxist radical Willi Munzenberg, of Frankfurt School fame, who is quoted as saying: “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.” Sadly, their efforts have nearly succeeded – though thankfully our culture doesn’t yet stink as badly as Russian culture.
This is the awful legacy and crumbling foundation modern Russia is working from. While you can perhaps say today’s Russia is an improvement, the difference is negligible. Despite the carefully-concocted propaganda, Russian society has yet to break free from Soviet norms and is still further advanced down the road of cultural Marxism than the United States. Russian women still abort far more of their babies than their American counterparts and have a lower birth rate. And Russia has a staggering 60% divorce rate – the highest in the world. Russian homes are in tatters and their culture remains hostile to the traditional family. In no sense whatsoever can Russia be considered a “bastion of traditionalism.”
Let’s now move on to the second point. How feminine are Russian women? And do they really reject “Western” feminism as we so frequently hear? Sadly, the answer is no, they’re not particularly feminine and they don’t reject feminism. I’m convinced that most people believe Russian women are feminine because a good many Russian women are exceptionally attractive and, outwardly, dress in skirts and heels and always do up their face and hair. But is this what real femininity is?
Wikipedia defines femininity as “a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with women and girls.” According to this definition, you might be able to get away with calling women “feminine” if you really stretch it. But when we couch this in terms of traditionalism, the attempt falls flat. Remember, part of being traditional is being modest and moral. Russian women are not modest. Trust me on this one. Russian women are in the habit of wearing very short skirts, revealing attire, and overdoing it on makeup and accessories. They spend an exorbitant amount of their money on cosmetics, furs, and fancy clothes and shoes.
And what about behavior? Part of being feminine is to act ladylike and fulfill womanly duties like motherhood. 65% of Russian women work – a substantially higher percentage than in the United States. That’s not terribly feminine. Why aren’t these “feminine” women at home with their children? Perhaps one reason they’re in the workplace instead of in the home is that they don’t have a family. Remember, 60% of Russian marriages end in divorce. Also, the birthrate in Russia is pitifully low and even lower than the U.S. birthrate at 1.75 children per family. Again, this behavior is not very feminine.
Furthermore, Russian women are bossy – like Western feminists. They’re often shrill – again, just like Western feminists. Frankly, they push the men around and I’ve seen them be both physically and verbally abusive. They also drink, do drugs, and sleep around at a higher rate than Western women (though, fortunately, alcohol consumption is decreasing). Russia has one of the most rapidly rising AIDS/HIV epidemics in the world due in large part to the rampant sexual immorality. Can women who break the Lord’s law of chastity honestly be considered feminine?
Russians in general engage in many behaviors that are repugnant to most Americans, such as public urination and defecation (though San Francisco, Commiefornia apparently sees nothing wrong with this). It’s a real problem. I watched mothers teaching their young boys to pee on the road and in the streets – not in emergency situations, but as a matter of course. I’ve even seen grown women squatting on the side of the road doing their business as people walked by. Fortunately, American women haven’t yet followed that trend.
Prostitution and public indecency are also massive problems in Russia. I’ve never seen so many prostitutes in one place in my life as I did in Russia. You’d see them selling their bodies on the side of the road as their handlers waited in a dirty van behind them. Then, down the road, their mafia oversees sat in cars monitoring police radios so they could warn their girls to run if the cops were on their way. I witnessed this phenomenon on more than one occasion. It’s remarkable how fast some women can run in high heels. I guess, as Vladimir Putin said, Russia has the best hookers.
As for pornography, the “new drug” that is scourging the world, I saw men and women both looking at pornographic magazines and videos while riding on trains or public transport. Billboards could also be a tad too salacious at times and you’d see far too much skin whenever you saw people sunbathing or swimming. If you visited the markets (the same ones where ripped-off American products or cheap knockoffs of everything imaginable proliferated), you had to be careful where you looked.
It’s sad that the sex-industrial complex is so well-established that we have detailed analytics on porn usage by country, region, state, gender, device type, day of the week, search category, and so forth, but we do. According to the data, Russia ranks 12th in global traffic to the world’s largest online porn site and their top search category is “Russian.” And there are a lot of Russian porn stars to search considering that Russia ranks #2 in the world (behind, tragically, our own country) in contributing female “actresses” to pornographic films (five of the top ten porn-star-contributing nations are Russia and four of its “former” Soviet satellites).
In short, Russian women are gripped by feminism without even realizing it. No, they don’t consider themselves feminist – but neither do American women if statistics are to be believed. Yet, the feminist culture dominates. It is exhibited in habits and thought patterns. Russian women, like women in the West at the present time, are conditioned to believe that they are “liberated” by being single and sexually debauched, “free” when they murder their offspring, and “fulfilled” when they work. They are not submissive ladies and are in fact more willing to walk all over you, hit you, curse you out, cheat on you, or divorce you than American women are. Simply, don’t buy the hype about the “feminine” Russian woman.
The third and final point on our list I will cover only briefly. There is a myth circulating on the internet, perpetuated largely by Marxist-controlled Hollywood, that Russian men are masculine and strong. Sorry to burst the bubble, but this is laughably untrue. The Hollywood image of a tall, broad, muscular man with a great big beard is the polar opposite of reality in today’s Russia. Most Russian men are short, scrawny, and look as if they’ve been on a concentration camp diet. On a daily basis, I’d shake hands with people I met with on the streets. And on a daily basis Russian men audibly gasped and winced when I shook their hands. For the most part, they had a limp-wristed grip. A handshake really does tell you a lot about a person.
In 2007, I participated in a three-on-three basketball tournament in the small city of Ramenskoye to the south of Moscow. One of the opposing teams had a player from the Russian national basketball team on it. When we played them, I guarded the professional player. I held him scoreless and usually out-rebounded him even though he was one of the few Russians I ever met who was taller than me (I’m almost 6’1” and at the time I had lost thirty pounds and weighed only 160 lbs.). He was frustrated and thought I played too rough. I played against Russians in basketball, soccer, tackle football, and gatorball and in each case Russian men and boys wined about how physical Americans played (I’ve read that pro players from other countries almost universally observe the same thing when they come to America to play). In truth, they were simply unfit wimps. Physically, the average Russian man is a pitiful specimen.
Hollywood is not reality
Naturally, there’s more to masculinity and character than physicality. A real man should be chivalrous, gentlemanly, courteous, polite, hard-working, a protector of women, have an upright character, be totally loyal to his wife and marriage covenants, and so forth. When this is applied to Russian men, however, they fail again. Russian men are, as a whole, drunkards. They also use a large amount of drugs.
In the city of Mytishchi where I lived for a time, you’d see drug needles littering the streets and our church building happened to be located in what people called “the drug area” (which was also home to numerous prostitutes and mafia groups). Russian SWAT routinely raided our neighbor’s property looking for drugs. In some cities, it was common to see Russians walking down the road with alcohol in one hand and a cigarette in the other. More times than I can count I’ve seen Russian men passed out in the street, peeing on themselves in public, convulsing from drugs in a corner alley, or dancing lewdly and making fools of themselves in front of everyone. The constant smell of cigarette smoke hanging in the air really completed the atmosphere.
Additionally, Russian men brawl and fight, curse and quarrel. It was routine to see men walking or staggering down the street covered in blood from either fighting or falling down drunk and bashing their face. The number of Russian men with missing or broken teeth was also astonishing – again, largely from brawling or drunkenness. And the number of Russian men who had been to prison – as evidenced by their tattoos – was also staggering.
As noted, Russian men get pushed around by their women (that is, when they’re not committing rape and murder at high rates). And why wouldn’t they? Russia is a feminist country – the first feminist country. It is a bastion of feminism and yet they don’t even realize it. Russian men (and, sadly, many Western men) see their raucous and dangerous behavior as some sort of masculinity. But it’s not real masculinity; it’s juvenile and crass. Drunkenness, fighting, prolific swearing (when I learned the various forms of the f-word in Russian, I was shocked at how commonplace their usage was), sexual unchastity, violent criminality, and physical unfitness do not a masculine nation make.
When you really look at the whole picture, Russia is not the “bastion of traditionalism” that propagandists and those who have been taken in by propaganda claim. I wish Russia was a bastion of Faith, Families, and Freedom. This is my wish for my own country and for every nation on earth. I yearn for the day when evil will be swept away, when the communist cancer will be eradicated, when feminism will die its natural death, when corruption and war are terminated, when sanity will prevail once more, when the Gospel of Jesus Christ sinks deep into every heart, and when Freedom will prevail.
Sadly, we are not there yet and won’t be until the Lord returns in His glory. Until then, Russia stands as an enemy to the human race. The notion that “communism is dead” and “the USSR collapsed” is one of the most devastatingly effective ruses ever pulled on the world. The reality is that the Soviets faked their demise and communism never died. Indeed, the communist conspiracy is more powerful and prevalent than ever before. Russia, China, and their allies are in a strategically advantageous position over the West and the final clash draws closer despite Washington’s boast of strength and stability. You will live to see Russia and China strike the United States and initiate world war. Mark my words.
One final word is in order. You have doubtless noted the contempt in my tone. Let me make it clear that my contempt is for the Russian government and for the communist regime that so thoroughly demoralized and beat down the Russian people. I don’t hate the Russian people – I pity them. They are a product of communism – victims of the most wicked conspiracy ever created. I pity them and pray for them.
Here is the reality: Russia today is the America of tomorrow unless we root out the communist cancer among us. Russia is not following the West, as I so often hear, but we are following them – and to our detriment. From no-fault-divorce to civil marriages to abortion-on-demand to massive drunkenness to feminist women and emasculated men, Russia set the example and blazed the trail. And yet, still, there remain some fantastic individuals, including the most humble man I’ve ever met in my life – a spiritual giant from Ukraine who settled in Moscow – who call Russia home.
I mentioned that I lived in Russia for two years. I was there as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – one of the few foreign proselytizing churches that hasn’t been banned and kicked out by Putin’s regime (though Putin recently signed laws that severely restrict our ability to do the Lord’s work). I walked the streets speaking with Russians about their core beliefs, about their aspirations, and about their families. I met with them in their homes and churches. I visited the cities and villages. These people told me their life stories. They shared their beliefs about God. And some of them became lasting friends. I was even, for a short while after I returned home, engaged to a Russian gal.
My point is that I don’t hate the Russians. I love them and spent many nights on my knees praying for them. I do, however, hate communism. I hate the Russian regime that rules in Moscow and despise the KGB conspirator named Vladimir Putin who rules in the Kremlin and pretends he’s a Christian and traditionalist, despite his well-publicized affairs and broken marriage, so that the gullible will sympathize with and support Russia as some sort of world “savior.” Don’t fall for it.
One day, I firmly believe, though it will probably come only after a day of fire and cataclysm, Russia will throw off her shackles and become the Christian nation too many people wrongly believe she is now. The blood of Israel runs in their veins, as it does in the veins of most Caucasian peoples, and they have a glorious future. They will be gathered in by the Lord, but the time is not yet. At present, a communist pseudo-tsar rules in Moscow. Russia’s unparalleled stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons stands ready to be used to bring about the one-world order and one-world religion dreamed of by the global Elite. If we continue to allow the cultural Marxism imported into our nation by the Bolsheviks to infect us, we will be weak enough for the Elite to carry out their pre-planned strike.
It was this article’s purpose to wave the smelling salts under your nose to awaken you from the mental fantasy that Russia is a “bastion of traditionalism” and the hope of the world. Russia is, in truth, the home of feminism and the world leader in cultural degradation. The West is the way it is because we have followed Russia’s example. If we seek to reverse the trends, we need to stop listening to Russian propaganda and those who buy into it and instead cling to the traditions, values, and institutions that made Western Christian civilization great.
As Americans, we must rush forward to defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom against Marxist machinations whether promoted by Washington, Moscow, Tel Aviv, London, or Beijing. Our only hope is in turning to the Lord Jesus Christ and in rejecting all anti-Christ philosophies. If we seek traditionalism, we must look for it here at home – not on the Red steppes of Russia.
What is “abortionism”? When you search the word “abortionism” on Google, you get a paltry 7,010 results and not a whole lot of substance. Even as I type the term into my word processor, a squiggly red “error” line appears underneath it telling me it’s not a word. Yet, abortionism is very real. It is my purpose today to introduce you to abortionism and raise my warning voice against this evil.
In a brilliant 2014 articlefor LifeSiteNews, one of the premier sources for pro-life news, Jonathon Van Maren gave us this description of abortionism:
““Abortionism” is essentially a philosophy that raises abortion to a sacred status, above all other democratic principles.
“. . . Abortion’s now-sacred status is symptomatic of something far more sinister: the sweeping success of the Sexual Revolution. So-called “sexual rights” are now considered to be the most important “rights” our society has, and take precedence over all other rights, regardless of how fundamental they are.”
Abortionism is part and parcel of a creed that places sex on an altar. For adherents, sex and self-gratification is a religion. Anything connected with sex, such as “sexual rights” – of which abortion ranks first – is considered sacrosanct. “My body, my choice” has become their mantra. And abortion is their highest sacrament. The deluded parishioners of this death cult view any opposition to abortion-on-demand and the hedonistic culture that necessitates it as an attack on their core beliefs.
This sycophanticassembly of abortion-lovers is oblivious to the fact that they are imitating the cultures of the past which sacrificed precious babies to pagan gods. In my article “Moloch’s Modern Children,” I wrote:
“Abortion is nothing if not child sacrifice. It is perhaps more systematized and sanitized by impersonal medical jargon than its ancient counterpart, but the result is the same – the mass slaughter of infants. Whereas the heathen peoples of the past sacrificed their children to false gods and idols for religious purposes, we sacrifice our children on the altar of political ideology. . . .
“Truly, abortion is modern human sacrifice disguised in medical terminology and deceptively euphemistic language. It is just as grotesque and cruel today as when the heathens did it anciently. . . .
“Abortion is infanticide, plain and simple. It is our modern-day version of public ritual sacrifice. We don’t sacrifice our children to Moloch by making them “pass through the fire” (2 Kings 23:10), but we do sacrifice them in murder facilities known as abortion clinics. We don’t burn them to death, but we do rip their little skulls apart and suck out their brains, inject them with fatal chemicals, snip their spinal cord, leave them in freezers to die, or cut them apart while still alive in order to harvest their organs. How are we any different than the pagan peoples of the past? If anything, we are worse because we deny that our actions are wrong and turn a blind eye to the gruesome ways in which our children are butchered.”
Like the Hebrews of the past in their times of wickedness, modern peoples sacrifice their children to false gods – whether those gods be ideologies, political parties, or religious beliefs. Though we don’t usually burn our children to death before a chanting crowd, we nevertheless butcher them – and then feminists and LGBT maniacs clamor for this “right” in mass protests. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Al Lemmo, a self-declared “pro-life activist” and current Republican congressional candidate running against the radical socialist feminist Muslim Rashida Tlaib, has written some of the most scathing rebukes of abortionism you can find on the net. Lemmo defined abortionism as an “idolatrous cult . . . based in a philosophy of human self-worship.” He further observed:
“Its standard practices are three “abortions”:
“1) The Theological Abortion of the authority of God to grant us our human rights . . . This act of idolatry is at the heart of all sin. It can also be described as idolatrous worship of the human intellect as competent to choose criteria for who deserves the recognition and protection of the human community as persons under the law. This enables the second abortion, which is…
“2) The Mental Abortion, by which the target population, however defined, is mentally relegated to some subhuman category such that anything can be done to it. This step is essential to overcoming the moral obstacles to committing the most egregious violations of other human beings that all human societies prohibit. Conscience is effectively removed from the picture by this process such that the third and final abortion can be done. This is…
“3) The Physical Abortion of lives or liberties by some form of murder, enslavement, plunder or bodily violation. In the case of prenatal child-slaying it is literally [a] living human sacrifice (abortion rites) to the idols this nation has come to worship (money, power, reputation, convenience, unrestricted sexual expression, etc.).”
The self-worship premise of abortionism brings to mind a statement from the ex-communist Whittaker Chambers. In his exposé Witness, Chambers observed:
“Communism is what happens when, in the name of Mind, men free themselves from God” (Whittaker Chambers, Witness, xxxvii).
As will be discussed later, the plague of abortion – modern human sacrifice – has been promoted most fervently by the Marxists. But in a broader sense, abortionism, hedonism, feminism, and all other selfish, me-centered ideologies, are a result of man’s rejection of God. This amalgam of Devilish philosophies is a complete repudiation of reality and nature. It is a rebellion against the very notion of eternal law and order!
Abortionism is a rejection of God and, with Him, a rejection of moral laws. The creed deifies man – though not unborn humans, apparently. It negates all just laws and the decrees of the Constitution. It abolishes the notion promulgated in the Declaration of Independence that we have certain natural rights from our Creator, such as the right to life. It completely dismisses the basis of Western civilization as incorrect and instead embraces the might-makes-right barbarism of the past.
I cannot emphasize this too strongly. And so at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me restate these points. As Americans, it is particularly crucial that we understand that abortionism strikes at the heart of everything that made our Republic great and that those who promote it are inherently anti-American. Abortionism is not merely another lifestyle – it is alien and hostileto Americanism. It is incompatible with our traditional culture and societal system. The United States was founded on the idea of eternal law. Our nation’s first law, first creed, and first public declaration proclaims that we are all “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is to “secure these rights, [that] Governments are instituted among Men.” The U.S. government was brought into being to protect life and all that a free existence entails!
Americanism, at its core, is based on the concept that there is a God, that the universe is governed by immutable laws, that human beings are bound by those laws, and that the primary purpose of individuals forming civil societies and erecting governments is to better secure those rights and defend against those who would destroy them. Abortionists, by default, are at open war with the first of all rights, the right of life, and with our Constitution which guarantees this right. The malicious destruction of innocent human life, therefore, is an attack upon God’s laws, Christian culture, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Americanist philosophy.
In another editorial, Al Lemmo wrote the following about this vile death cult andfurther explained why it is incompatible with the American Freedom philosophy, rule of law, and Christian civilization:
“Abortionism is the world’s oldest and most destructive cult. Its central dogma, unchanged through millennia, has held that the fundamental and inalienable rights to life, liberty and property are not rights at all but conditional grants that may be terminated or aborted at any time on the basis of whatever criteria those who have the power to do the aborting choose to recognize. Any portion of the human community may be summarily excluded from recognition and even destroyed based on these criteria. The criteria may include race, color, creed, national origin, class, sex, abilities and birth.
“The Abortionite dogma is totally opposed to that of the originally established “religion” of America which was an inclusive philosophy of unconditional and intrinsic human rights. The only criterion for inclusion was to be a living member of the human species, born or unborn. I choose to call this philosophy “Intrinsicism”. The Abortionite dogma is then an extreme subset of a philosophy that can be called “Extrinsicism”, or the belief that fundamental human rights derive from extrinsic human sources rather than being inherent with each individual.
“The extremism of the Abortionite lies in his willingness to destroy (or abort) the fundamental human rights of those he has refused to grant recognition or personhood. . . .
“Regardless of exclusionary criterion, the central dogma and guiding philosophy of Abortionism – that rights are granted to powerless people by powerful people rather than intrinsic with every individual – remains intact from one sect to the next. The reverence for power, especially the power to decide whose lives and liberties may be destroyed, has always been the common thread among all Abortionites. . . .
“The first objective of any Abortionite campaign has been to breach the wall of separation between freedom and oppression (or civilization and barbarianism) which is the philosophical foundation of a free or civilized society. This wall is the philosophy of Intrinsicism. Once the wall is breached by compromising the integrity of the philosophy that protects life and liberty, all the criteria of the various Abortionite sects then compete on an equal basis because they are justified in principle.
“Abortionism is humanity’s original false religion . . . Eternal vigilance is the price of keeping Abortionism in check, yet it has such an amazing capacity to evade detection, mutate and adapt itself to any culture, that it has continued to plague humanity, even infecting a society as dedicated to human rights as our own in epidemic proportions.”
We can debate some of Lemmo’s definitions perhaps, but there is no debating the fact that the death cult of abortionism is hostile to everything America has traditionally stood for – Faith, Families, and Freedom. It is inimical to the rights declared in our founding documents. It is antithetical to the Christian norms that have undergirded our society for centuries. It is an offensive, perverse, murderous ideology born in and suckled on blood. The voices of millions of infants cry out to the God who gave them life against this ritualized slaughter.
The Lord anciently said “all they that hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36). It is an eternally true proverb. Those in rebellion against the Lord’s laws in our day are part of a massive death cult. Communism is the ultimate murder cult and all those who support and tolerate the socialist/communist ideology – which advocates abortion as a “human right” – hate the Lord and love death.
In 1971, the great religious leader Spencer W. Kimball took to the pulpit to admonish society for adopting hedonistic practices. He spoke of the lax sexual norms that lead to ideologies like abortionism and how these trends destroy families and will eventually upend our entire society. He stated:
“Men and women are “lovers of their own selves.” They boast in their accomplishment. They curse. They blaspheme. Another sin is disobedience of children to parents and parents’ disobedience to law. Many are without the natural affection, which seems to be eroding family life as they seek to satisfy their own selfish wants.
“There are said to be millions of perverts who have relinquished their natural affection and bypassed courtship and normal marriage relationships. This practice is spreading like a prairie fire and changing our world. They are without “natural affection” for God, for spouses, and even for children.
“Paul speaks of continence—a word almost forgotten by our world. Still in the dictionary, it means self-restraint, in sexual activities especially. Many good people, being influenced by the bold spirit of the times, are now seeking surgery for the wife or the husband so they may avoid pregnancies and comply with the strident voice demanding a reduction of children. It was never easy to bear and rear children, but easy things do not make for growth and development. But loud, blatant voices today shout “fewer children” and offer the Pill, drugs, surgery, and even ugly abortion to accomplish that. Strange, the proponents of depopulating the world seem never to have thought of continence!
“Libraries are loaded with books with shocking pictures, showing people how to totally satisfy their animal natures, but few books are found on the self-control of continence. With a theory that “life is for sex,” every imagination of the minds of men devises ways to more completely get what they call “sexual fulfillment,” which they demand at the expense of all else—family, home, eternal life. There should be from press and lecture platform and pulpit deep and resounding voices urging man to rise above the carnal and rest his mind on things clean and sacred” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Voices of the Past, of the Present, of the Future,” General Conference, April, 1971).
Yes, society is wrapped up in self-love to the detriment of everything holy and good. People want the benefits of sex without marriage, of intimacy without responsibility, and of pleasure without “burdens” like children. They use devices, pills, and procedures to ensure that they won’t fulfill the highest purpose of sexual intimacy – having children. But of course they’ll happily receive the sexualbenefits formerly reserved for marriage!They are so self-absorbed and care only about themselves and their own convenience and pleasure to such an extreme degree that they’re willing to murder their offspring.
Let’s make no bones about it. Abortion is infanticide! It is de facto murder. It is the premeditated destruction of another human being – a little child with fingers, eyes, and a heartbeat. Mortal life begins at conception. In spite of all the propaganda to the contrary, science has conclusively proven this to be the case.With this in mind, we can positively state that elective abortion – which accounts for 99% of all abortions whereas exceptions for rape victims account for less than one percent of procedures – is the willing, deliberate, and unnecessary taking of life and has no place in a free and ordered society.
Feminists and their ilk say “my body, my choice.” But this is nottrue. It is such an intellectually flimsy argument that every honest person can see through it. In a 2008 sermon, the world-renowned heart surgeon and current president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Russell M. Nelson, spoke of abortion and the “my body, my choice” myth. He said:
“This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice. . . .
“. . . Most abortions are performed on demand to deal with unwanted pregnancies. These abortions are simply a form of birth control.
“Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. . . .
“Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut’s mission or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of that choice. She cannot “unchoose.”
“When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make. . . .
“Life is precious! No one can cuddle an innocent infant, look into those beautiful eyes, feel the little fingers, and kiss that baby’s cheek without a deepening reverence for life and for our Creator. Life comes from life. It is no accident. It is a gift from God. Innocent life is not sent by Him to be destroyed. It is given by Him and is naturally to be taken by Him alone” (President Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” General Conference, October, 2008).
Life is precious, indeed! Babies are cherished gems trusted into our care. A baby is a “reward” from our Father in Heaven (Psalm 127:3-5). No one has a right to snuff out an innocent life – and especially not for mere convenience sake. No one has a right to destroy another body while erroneously claiming it is their own body. No one has a right to deny nature or escape the consequences of their choices – including the beautiful gift that is a human child. And no unrepentant soul will escape the harsh judgment reserved for those who destroy innocent children.
Yet, despite these seminal truths, the selfish mindset of abortionism is spreading. It is so bad that some spiritually sick women are now getting pregnant just so they can abort their babies in what is nothing more than ritual murder! Despite recent pro-life legal victories, our culture is becoming continuously saturated with the death cult mentality. Life is little valued. The weakest among us are scarcely protected. And far too many otherwise good people are silent, thus becoming complicit in the criminality.
No civilized society, no society that is just, no society that values the rule of law, can allow abortion. It is a plague like slavery. As slavery did, itis tearing our society apart. And what Thomas Jefferson said of slavery applies to abortion:
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever” (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII).
I tremble for America when I think that since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision – an affront to the Bill of Rights’ guarantee of the right of life – over 70 million innocent, defenseless infants have been slaughtered. For context, this is a higher death toll than that accrued at the hands of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union! It is many times more than all the deaths of American service men in all of our nation’s wars combined! How truly sad it is that more Americans have been killed by their own mothers than at the hands of all our enemies!
One final point should be discussed. Perhaps my readers tire of me mentioning the communists, but out of fidelity to truth, I must do so. In modern times, abortion has been popularized and normalized by the Marxists. Yes, the feminists have been at the forefront of promoting this infanticide as a woman’s “right,” but feminism itself is only part of cultural Marxism and the leading feminists were usually card-carrying members of the Communist Party (and, frequently, anti-Christian Jews). The LGBT movement which also promotes hedonism and abortion was started by a homosexual man named Harry Hay who was, you guessed it, also a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA (he originally married a fellow communist Jewess before divorcing her to pursue his homosexual fantasies). And the Soviet Union was the first nation to legalize abortion-on-demand (as well as no-fault divorce). All of this was introduced to fulfill The Communist Manifesto’s dream of “abolishing the family” and subverting Christian society to make way for global domination by the Marxist state.
It should be startling to Americans do know that we are following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union and adopting the avowed principles of Marxism – the world’s most murderous ideology. Not only did communism slaughter between 100-150 million people in Russia and China alone, but it has the blood of dozens of millions more on its hands through the wars its has started and the practice of abortion is popularized. I sincerely believe we will never win our fight against abortionism as an emerging religion if we do not identify it as a branch of the communism conspiracy. And we will never win that fight unless we acknowledge that communism is Satanism and that Satan is a real being who leads the forces of darkness in the fight against the Son of God. If we are to throw off the shroud of darkness that hangs over us, we must do so with the light of Christ – for only light expels darkness.
We battle, as Paul said, “against powers, against the rulers darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places” (Ephesians 6:12). What wickedness could be greater than the deliberate mass slaughter of infants? What can be called “darkness” if not the genocide of unborn children being perpetrated in abortion clinics worldwide? What, if not abortionism’s assault on life, can possibly rouse us to stand up in defense of our God-given rights?
We have an option as a society. We can stand up and say, “No more” to those who advocate killing the next generation of Americans or we can continue to allow the slaughter of our infants until the act of killing for convenience so saturates our culture that we begin killing the elderly, the diseased, and others we think encumber our lives. Don’t fool yourself – history cries out that this is exactly where this genocidal road leads.
And so, what will you do? Will you sit silently, making yourself an accessory to this great crime of infant slaughter? Or will you exercise all your avenues for speaking out, swaying minds, and warning your neighbor? And what of President Trump? What is he doing? Does he not understand that when he swore his oath to uphold the Constitution that he also swore to protect our rights, including our right to life, regardless of what a rogue Supreme Court said nearly fifty years ago? Do we, as a People, not understand that Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional, and, thus, void, opinion by an activist court that abused its authority? Do we, the American People, not understand that no ruling, no law, no decree from any leader is valid and enforceable unless it conforms to the Constitution – a document which defends life? Or do we simply not have the courage to hold our elected representatives accountable for fulfilling their oaths?
I make a plea for everyone to reject the scourge of abortion, to combat the cultish dogma of abortionism, and to only support men for office who will take their oaths to the Constitution seriously and defend our God-given rights. Stand firm against the onslaught of popular opinion – for we are on the Lord’s errand in defending His precious sons and daughters. He gives life not to be destroyed, but to be cherished and protected. As Americans, do your duty and rise in defense of those ideals which made ours the greatest nation on the face of the earth. Defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom against the demonic assault of the Marxist abortionists!
In Ancient Israel, the apostate Hebrews adopted the pagan practice of child sacrifice to false gods. Psalm 106:35-38 informs us that the Israelites:
“mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.”
One of those pagan idols was Moloch, also known as Molech or Milcom. This heathen god was often associated with Baal and Ashtoreth. The salient point, however, is that in their wicked state the Israelites sacrificed their innocent children to these false deities. A greater evil than slaughtering innocent infants is hard to fathom. Yet, this practice is not a relic of the past; it is a fixture of our present.
Abortion is nothing if not child sacrifice. It is perhaps more systematized and sanitized by impersonal medical jargon than its ancient counterpart, but the result is the same – the mass slaughter of infants. Whereas the heathen peoples of the past sacrificed their children to false gods and idols for religious purposes, we sacrifice our children on the altar of political ideology.
Abortion is a political football in the Marxists’ perverse game for world conquest. It is a talking point to curry favor with useful idiots who can be persuaded to give up their power to the Marxist Elite. Not surprisingly, Soviet Russia was the first modern state to legalize abortion. Abortion-on-demand became endemic and took a severe toll on the Russian people. Tragically, we followed the Soviet path and legalized infanticide.
In a recent article titled “Ancient Civilizations Sacrificed Children, But We Abort Them,” Cheryl Sullenger spoke of an archaeological discovery in Peru of the bones of 137 sacrificed children. She then made this remark comparing our ghastly practice of abortion with child sacrifice in the past:
“[B]abies whose hearts were still beating were cut open so their organs could be removed – just like the children who walked through mud to their grisly deaths in Peru over five centuries ago.
“The murder of children isn’t confined to the distant past, nor to superstitious idolaters who sacrificed human beings for what they considered the benefit of their people. It is still happening at abortion clinics, done by supposedly civilized and well-educated people, who try to convince the rest of us that this grisly barbarism is done for the betterment of humanity.
“States like New York and abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood are setting civilization back hundreds of years to the days of child sacrifice, which has morphed into the practice of abortion. Today the brutal violence is shrouded in euphemisms such as “reproductive health.” Abortion has nothing to do with “reproduction” and even less to do with “health.” It is all about killing a child for the mother’s convenience. . . .
“It’s time to face the hard truth of the matter that abortion is little different from child sacrifice, no matter how hard some attempt to obfuscate that fact. Killing babies can never improve our culture or our lives. It couldn’t in Peru over 500 years ago and it can’t in America today.”
Truly, abortion is modern human sacrifice disguised in medical terminology and deceptively euphemistic language. It is just as grotesque and cruel today as when the heathens did it anciently. In the same powerful article just cited, Sullenger spoke of Holly O’Donnell’s “experiences harvesting aborted baby organs at the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in San Jose, California.” In one particular case, the employees found that one of the “aborted” children was still alive. Here is the sick account:
“So, then I hear her call my name. “Hey, Holly! Come over here. I want you to see something kinda cool. It’s kinda neat!” So, I’m over here and – the moment I see it I’m just flabbergasted. This is the most gestated fetus and closest thing to a “baby” that I’ve seen.
“And she’s like, “Okay, I want to show you something.” So she has one of her instruments and she just taps the heart and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here, and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating and I don’t know what to think. . . .
“I knew why it was happening. It’s because of the electrical current was — the nodes were still firing, and I don’t know if that constitutes — it’s technically dead? Or it’s alive?
“It had a face. It wasn’t completely torn up. And its nose was very pronounced. It had eyelids and its mouth was pronounced. And then, since the fetus was so intact, [Jessica] said, “Okay, this is a really good fetus and it looks like we can procure a lot from it. We’re going to procure a brain.””
The article then concluded the morbid story:
“O’Donnell then described how Jessica began the harvesting process by cutting through the lower jaw and into the face with scissors, then instructed O’Donnell to finish cutting through the face so she could extract the brain.”
This level of callousness is not at all uncommon in the infant death industry. How many times do we have to read stories of Planned Parenthood operatives privately selling the body parts of dead babies before we wake up? How many monsters like Kermit Gosnell have to be exposed before we sit up and take note? How many more of our sons and daughters have to die before we grow a conscience and act to preserve their right of life?
Over 70 million of God’s sons and daughters – our sweet, innocent infants – have been snuffed out in our nation since Roe v. Wade. For context, that’s more than the 60 million who were slaughtered by Lenin and Stalin in the Soviet Union. Entire generations of Americans have been cruelly wiped out. And the Marxists in Democratic clothing in are making a massive push to expand this industry of death and make permissible the murder of children even after they are successfully born. As opposed to the fictitious atrocity propaganda we have been inundated with, this is the real Holocaust we should be concerned with.
Abortion is infanticide, plain and simple. It is our modern-day version of public ritual sacrifice. We don’t sacrifice our children to Moloch by making them “pass through the fire” (2 Kings 23:10), but we do sacrifice them in murder facilities known as abortion clinics. We don’t burn them to death, but we do rip their little skulls apart and suck out their brains, inject them with fatal chemicals, snip their spinal cord, leave them in freezers to die, or cut them apart while still alive in order to harvest their organs. How are we any different than the pagan peoples of the past? If anything, we are worse because we deny that our actions are wrong and turn a blind eye to the gruesome ways in which our children are butchered.
Will we continue to listen to feminists who screech “my body, my choice”? It is not their body – it is the body of an unborn boy or girl who will grow into a man or woman. The science on this matter is settled. Only ignorant or lying individuals pretend the science is not settled regarding when life begins. Life begins at conception. This is not connected to theology or philosophy; it is pure science and biology – science that has been determined and confirmed for decades! Women are deluded if they believe the baby inside them is not a living human being, but rather just a “clump of cells.”
No, woman, the being inside you is a little boy or girl, your future son or daughter. They have a right to live just like you do. If you do not want that child, be responsible and don’t have sex. It’s really that simple. But since you entered into the contractual arrangement of sexual intercourse – the means God gave us for creating life – you are now responsible for that child with the man you mated with. Once you create life, it is not your body and it is not your choice. We all must live with the consequences of our actions. And in this case, the “consequence” is a glorious blessing from Heaven that will bless, not burden, your life. Embrace that blessing and your calling as a mother of one of Heavenly Father’s sons or daughters.
Rather than embrace their calling as mothers, however, many selfish women make the decision to kill their offspring. They join with Moloch’s high priests to sacrifice their children on the altar of expediency, laziness, selfishness, hedonism, and ignorance. Abortion is a black mark on our society which considers itself so “civilized.”
Russell M. Nelson, a powerful religious leader whom I revere, spent his earlier career as a prominent, internationally-known doctor. He said this of abortion:
“This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice.
“This matters greatly to us because the Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: “Thou shalt not kill.” Then He added, “Nor do anything like unto it.” Even before the fulness of the gospel was restored, enlightened individuals understood the sanctity of human life. John Calvin, a sixteenth-century reformer, wrote, “If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, . . . it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fœtus in the womb before it has come to light.”
“Man-made rules have now legalized that which has been forbidden by God from the dawn of time! Human reasoning has twisted and transformed absolute truth into sound-bite slogans that promote a practice that is consummately wrong.
“Concern for the health of the mother is a vital one. But circumstances in which the termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother are very rare, particularly where modern medical care is available. Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman’s freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered advisable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Abortions for these reasons are also rare. . . .
“To deny life to an individual because of a possible handicap is a very serious matter. Policy consistent with that logic would dictate that those already living with such deficiencies should likewise be terminated. One more step in that tragic train of thought would lead to the conclusion that those who are either infirm or inconvenient should also be eliminated. Such irreverence for life would be totally unthinkable!
“Relatively few abortions are performed for the special circumstances to which I have referred. Most abortions are performed on demand to deal with unwanted pregnancies. These abortions are simply a form of birth control.
“Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. . . .
“Life is precious! No one can cuddle an innocent infant, look into those beautiful eyes, feel the little fingers, and kiss that baby’s cheek without a deepening reverence for life and for our Creator. Life comes from life. It is no accident. It is a gift from God. Innocent life is not sent by Him to be destroyed. It is given by Him and is naturally to be taken by Him alone. I testify that life is eternal as He is eternal” (President Russell M. Nelson, “Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless,” Ensign, October, 2008).
Yes, life is precious! Life is a gift from our Father in Heaven. We have no right to deny life to the innocent children that our Father sends into the world. These are our brothers and sisters – our family. We are behaving like vicious beasts that devour their own offspring. More pointedly, we are behaving like the pagan peoples of old who burned their children in the fires of Moloch. The precious victims of abortion are Moloch’s modern children.
Every civilized individual, every Christian, and everyone who loves the U.S. Constitution, must unite to end the Devilish infanticide that plagues our society. It is a black mark that is causing us to incur God’s wrath. Thomas Jefferson’s warning regarding slavery is applicable to abortion:
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”
God’s justice cannot and will not rest for ever. It will not sit by and watch as His children are callously slaughtered by the millions for long. Like the apostate Israelites whom God punished for killing their infant sons and daughters, so, too, will we reap a similar fate if we continue to sacrifice our children to Moloch. We must end the infanticide. We must end abortion. And we must end it now.
Zack Strong,
March 22, 2019.
Watch the documentary “Blood Money” for more on the grisly practice of modern child sacrifice known as abortion:
Feminism is a disease! It is a spiritual, mental, cultural sickness. The Women’s Liberation movement was founded by Marxists and serves to this day as a communist front. The purpose of the organized women’s movement is to destroy the institution of the home because the home is the ultimate safeguard of society. It accomplishes this by blurring the lines between the genders, turning Biblical traditionalism on its head, breaking down marriages, destroying families, and creating animosity and disunity among the population. Simply, feminism is so dangerous because feminism destroys families.
The communist conspirators have founded, co-opted, or used numerous movements as fronts through which they achieve their purposes and promote their insidious ideology. Marxist agitators started the destructive LGBT movement, the radical environmentalist movement, and the so-called “civil rights” movement, to name only three. Feminism, however, has been the most devastatingly effective of all communist fronts. This is so precisely because it strikes at the foundation of society – the family.
The family is the bulwark of society. It is the rock foundation of every civilization. The health of a people’s homes reveals the health of the overall society. As homes go, so goes society. The family is the key building block of humanity – the ultimate institution. Anything that undermines the family unit assaults and degrades society. And feminism is the greatest offender.
Inessa Armand, one of the leading Bolshevik women during the early days of the communist reign of terror in Russia, made this noteworthy statement:
“If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.”
According to one of the arch-feminists, “women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism.” Communism and feminism are inseparable. This is because in order for communism to succeed in its stated goal of world subjugation through world revolution, families must first be transformed and destroyed.
In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx smugly declared:
“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”
From the beginning, one of the most controversial and fundamental proposals of the communist conspiracy was the “abolition of the family.” Marx knew, and his ideological descendants understand, that the traditional family established on Biblical principles must be abolished first if communism is to be imposed upon the world.
On March 8th, the communist holiday known as International Women’s Day, Ellie Mae O’Hagan wrote a piece for The Guardian titled “Feminism without socialism will never cure our unequal society.” The subheading of her article charges: “Gender inequality is a necessary condition of capitalism, so this International Women’s Day join a trade union.” She followed this radical line of thought and stated:
“If this sounds like socialism, it’s because it is. Only by diminishing the power of the boss class, and giving female workers more access to collectively owned social goods, can we ensure that no woman is forced to choose between sexual and economic exploitation, and poverty. Inessa Armand, the Bolshevik revolutionary who was responsible for allowing Soviet women to divorce, have abortions, participate in politics and access childcare knew that only fundamental change to the economic system could make life better for women. “If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation,” she argued.
“Among the hashtags and vacuous corporate slogans that now flood International Women’s Day, it’s easy to forget that it was first celebrated 110 years ago by the Socialist Party of America to honour the New York garment workers’ strike, which had been held by female workers a year earlier. Eight years after the first International Women’s Day, female revolutionaries in Russia effectively overthrew the tsar with a series of protests and strikes, which also won them the right to vote. It’s not novel to tie socialism and feminism together: they are inextricably linked as movements, and always have been.
“Of course, it’s complacent for any socialist to argue that ending capitalism will simply erase sexism from existence. Gender inequality may be a necessary condition of capitalism, but it is maintained by culture. Sexism persists because it is propped up by a deep-rooted set of beliefs and stereotypes that imagine women as inferior. These won’t be forgotten overnight by changing the economic system; they must be actively taken on and defeated – and that fight must be led by women themselves. But understanding this makes socialism even more necessary: because women can’t fight against sexism as a whole if they’re too busy trying to keep their heads above water in an economic system that exploits them. Just as gender inequality is a necessary condition of capitalism, socialism is a necessary condition for the genuine liberation of the majority of women.”
O’Hagan’s article is a truly astounding piece of ideological rubbish. I quote it only to prove a point; namely, that from day one feminism has been intertwined with and inseparable from communism. Avowed socialists founded and spearheaded the Women’s Liberation movement. Today, “the fight must be led by women themselves.” What fight? The fight to destroy capitalism, destroy the “deep-rooted set of beliefs” (i.e. Christian beliefs) that undergird society, and destroy the home. To feminists, only socialism/communism can save women from their plight. It’s time to take these radicals at their word when they say things like, “socialism is a necessary condition for the genuine liberation of the majority of women.” They’re communists, plain and simple.
Preceding even Marx in the push for worldwide feminism was the Order of Illuminati. If you trace the history of that Bavarian secret society, you are led directly to an England-based group known as the League of the Just. It was this league that in 1848 hired Karl Marx to write a manifesto of belief and that changed its name to the Communist League when that declaration as published as The Communist Manifesto. Years later, under a new name, this same secret cabal was led by Vladimir Lenin and, with Western funding, overthrew Russia in 1917, creating the Soviet Union – the same Soviet Union that was the first state to legalize abortion-on-demand and institute no-fault divorce.
The founder of the Order of Illuminati was Adam Weishaupt. Weishaupt was a keen observer of human nature. He understood that the family unit had to be shattered into pieces if Illuminism (later to be known as socialism and communism), was to conquer the globe. The method Weishaupt and his cohorts devised to destroy the home was to co-opt and deceive women into working for them unawares. He wrote:
“There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women. These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves; it will be an immense relief to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them the more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so; for they will only be indulging their own desire of personal admiration” (Adam Weishaupt, in John Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy, 111).
In one short paragraph, Weishaupt described the purposes and methods of the feminist movement. History has proven the tragic accuracy of his words. Those women so deceived by these criminal agitators have worked for them “with zeal, without knowing that they do so.” By rising up against Biblical traditions that they have been indoctrinated to believe are “oppressive” and “sexist,” women have assisted the Illumined Marxists in their work of overthrowing society.
In the United States, women have traditionally been, without any question or shadow of doubt, the most blessed and privileged class of society. From the beginning, women held an honored place in our nation. They have been cherished and held up as role models. No one was more praised, honored, and valued than the American woman. Authors Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly, in fact, wrote:
“[B]uried beneath the surface lies the truth: American women are the most fortunate human beings who have ever lived. No one has it better. No one” (Venker and Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say, 14).
There was never any real oppression of women in the United States. Making women feel like underprivileged victims was a classic communist ruse used time and time again to great effect with various groups such as blacks and homosexuals. Instilling this false feeling of victimhood in women was the first step in mobilizing them for the world revolution. To reiterate the crucial point, this push began with the occultist founder of the Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt, and escalated under later communist leaders like Marx and Lenin. Feminism is part and parcel of the communist world revolution.
After a constant barrage of Marxist propaganda that painted them as “oppressed victims” of some fictitious “patriarchy,” however, the privileged American woman rebelled against her blessings and privileges. Under socialist leadership, women began demanding “equality” in a system that actually favored them, protected them, and was set up to support them in their inspired roles as wives, homemakers, and mothers. Instead of basking in the light of the American system, the system that made them the most privileged and blessed class of people in human history, Marxist-indoctrinated women served as the front-line soldiers in the cultural war against our Christian country.
In actual fact, the illusion of “equality” and “emancipation” these feminists sought ripped them from the arms of their children and the warmth of their homes and placed them in the rat race of 9-5 work. Instead of using their exceptional talents in the home to nurture the rising generation and, thus, to shape society, they gained an existence of meaningless work as drones in faceless, lifeless office buildings. With this fast-paced life, women gained high rates of depression and stress and began delaying or rejecting marriage and abandoning their God-appointed callings in the home.
The indoctrination has become so profound that women, and society at large, now see children as a burden. Pregnancies are routinely referred to “unwanted.” So “unwanted” are they, in fact, that over 70 million innocent babies have had their lives snuffed out by abortionists in the past 46 years since Roe v. Wade legalized infanticide. It is “inconvenient” for these worldly people to have families that present them from working, having fun, and focusing on themselves.
We live in a selfish world. And feminists epitomize selfishness. Instead of the home, they embrace hedonism. Instead of marriage, they adopt materialism. They shun familial duties and reject God’s commandments to marry (Genesis 2:18,24; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 11:11; Ephesians 5:31) and to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:27-28). Marxist-indoctrinated individuals certainly do not share the Lord’s view of children which asserts:
“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
“As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
“Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them” (Psalms 127:3-5).
Feminists are content with a self-centered lifestyle. They simply don’t have time for marriage and family. And when they do make the unpopular choice to marry, they are often so inadequate to the task that they cause divorces. Women initiate 80% of divorces in the United States. The rampant curse of no-fault divorces is symptomatic of the Red Plague of communism that has infected our population and corrupted our culture.
A former leader of my Church, President Boyd K. Packer, made this comment clear back in 1964:
“There is a trend in the world today—and unfortunately in the Church—for women to want to be emancipated. And we wonder at times—emancipated from what? From domesticity? From motherhood? From happiness? And to what are you in slavery? Your children? It is neither necessary nor desirable for the mother of little children to become a drudge or to be relegated to a position of servitude. It is not, however, uncommon to see women—interestingly enough many in the financially well-to-do category—over-surfeiting themselves with activities outside of the home at the expense of their little children.
“I have never known a mother to regret in the closing years of her life a sacrifice made for her children or to begrudge the cost of guiding them to fine Christian citizenship.
“On the other hand, we find almost universal remorse for neglect of family in the growing years or for overindulging children, which is symptomatic of the most serious type of neglect.
“Mothers, do not abandon your responsibilities!” (President Boyd K. Packer, “Suffer the Little Children,” General Conference, April, 1964).
If we are to fix this massive problem, women must unlearn what they have learned about relationships, marriage, and motherhood. They must cease viewing themselves as “victims.” They must realize how honored and blessed and valued they are. They must embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ which appoints them as wives, mothers, and homemakers – holy and high callings second to none in the economy of God’s Plan of Happiness for His children. They must no longer neglect their families, but return to the home.
Women, the home is where you were designed to shine! The home is your fortress of safety in this dark world. The home is your refuge from the storms of life. It is in the home where you can do the most good for society. The greatest thing you can do for you country and your community is to raise a generation of civil, kind, respectable, honorable, and righteous men and women. You may not receive the praise of the world by embracing your noble calling as a mother, but you will be honored, appreciated, and remembered for generations by your family. Which would you rather have, the hollow praise of the world or the authentic gratitude of your husband and children, your grandchildren and great grandchildren?
It is my firm belief that if we are to defeat feminism, we must once and for all convince women that they are being used as dupes and pawns by the communists in their push to abolish the family and enslave society. They must realize that they have been manipulated and that the fruit of their actions is the rampant divorce, millions of aborted babies, discontent between the sexes, the blurring of traditional gender roles, and the destruction of the family institution.
Researcher Henry Makow, himself a former feminist, wrote the classic book on feminism titled Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order. In it, he stated:
“Feminism’s roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but pernicious movement. . . .
“It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism promoted gender conflict instead. The “diversity” and “multicultural” movements represent feminism’s attempt to forge “allegiances” by empowering gays and “people of colour.” Thus, the original CPUSA trio of “race, gender and class” is very much intact but class conflict was never a big seller. . . .
“. . . Feminist activists are mostly Communist dupes. We see this subversion in the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities. We see it when feminists push the elite “global warming” hysteria. In government, business, the media and the military. This could only happen because the financial elite in fact sponsors Communism” (Henry Makow, Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order, 36-37).
Feminism is a top-down fraud foisted upon society via deceived women and their Bolshevik puppet masters. It is designed to disenfranchise women of their birthright as daughters of God and as co-creators with Him. It is also designed to sideline men – the traditional defenders of society. Ultimately, feminism was created not to make women “equal” to men or to win “rights” for women, but to break down society by shattering families, thus creating a weak society susceptible of overthrow.
Red Feminism must be thrown onto the ash heap of history if we are to move forward and progress as a civilization. Feminism has stunted our growth, robbed us of generations of Americans through the scourge of abortion, created deep fissures between men and women, promoted promiscuity and hedonism in place of spirituality and moral living, and, most damning, undermined the home so completely that we are at crisis levels. The key to combating this feminist enemy is to first identify it as a communist front movement.
Feminism is a Marxist movement. It is spiritual blindness whose chief principles and practices are at odds with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the plain revelations in the scriptures. If we want to save our Republic, we must save our families. If we desire to save our homes, we must extinguish the feminist conflagration burning them to the ground. If we seek to do that and preserve our People, we must know that feminism is communism and that communism is working behind the scenes to subjugate humanity under their iron rule. It’s time to wake up, America.
I have been asked why I think President Trump’s nomination for the next justice of the Supreme Court is a terrible choice. This brief article will highlight the reasons why Judge Brett Kavanaugh is an Establishment insider, an enemy to the U.S. Constitution, and a danger to our Republic.
The first red flag that stood out to me when I began reading up on Judge Kavanaugh was his horrendous grasp on the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Kavanaugh has openly sided with the government’s violations of our privacy. In fact, he has supported and upheld the NSA’s warrantless domestic spying program, astonishingly calling it “entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” He has also supported random, warrantless police pat downs as legitimate.
This point of view regarding this precious amendment is incredibly serious for several reasons. First, it shows that Kavanaugh has no historical understanding regarding the purpose and importance of the Fourth Amendment. The Founding Fathers often referred to the Fourth Amendment as the “bulwark” of the Constitution and of our Liberty. Second, this stance shows Kavanaugh does not comprehend the rights of privacy and person inherent in the Constitution and protected by the Fourth Amendment. And third, it demonstrates that Kavanaugh is not a true constitutionalist. Only real constitutionalists deserve a place on the Supreme Court.
I prize the Fourth Amendment so highly that I would reject Judge Kavanaugh solely based on his stance regarding it. However, the more I looked, the more problems I saw with Kavanaugh. One of the things that worries me is his deep connections to corrupt families and personalities in Washington, D.C. Kavanaugh is a huge friend of George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, for instance. Kavanaugh was on the legal team that helped swing things in Florida in favor of George W. during the infamous recounts. He later served as an aide to George W. Bush in the White House. Kavanaugh was in fact so close to Bush that he not only married one of the president’s secretaries, but was instrumental in convincing George W. to nominate John Roberts to the Supreme Court – a decision which has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. Every indication is that Kavanaugh is an active Establishment insider – part of the “swamp” Trump has failed so miserably at draining.
Another area of concern is abortion. A Vox article included this statement:
“But as Trump has considered Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy, some conservatives have started to voice concerns that the judge isn’t reliably conservative enough. Some conservatives, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), have pointed to Kavanaugh’s record on health care; others are concerned that Kavanaugh told senators during his DC Circuit confirmation hearing that he’d respect precedent on abortion and declined to share his views on Roe v. Wade.”
We do not need a “go-along-to-get-along” guy on the Supreme Court. We do not need someone who will “respect precedent” when that precedent is clearly immoral, unconscionable, and wrong. Abortion is little more than infanticide – a genocide of the unborn. Instead of putting forward a man who respects the Constitution’s guarantee of a person’s right to live and who is uncompromising on this crucial life-or-death subject, Trump has given us a man who is seemingly content to see “precedent” continue and not rock the boat. I remind the reader that over 70 million babies have had their lives snuffed out since Roe v. Wade. Tolerating this sort of reprehensible “precedent” reminds me of what Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Notes on the State of Virginia about slavery:
“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”
In addition to these alarming views, it turns out that Kavanaugh has been involved in high-level cover-ups for a long time. I speak specifically of the Vince Foster case. While the world claims Vince Foster – a White House aide during Bill Clinton’s presidency – committed suicide, the cold, hard evidence suggests he was murdered. The man who wrote the report ignoring and covering up crucial evidence demonstrating foul play was none other than Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh was one of the lead investigators in this case and was privy to the evidence countering the official narrative.
This scandalous episode goes to show that when you rub shoulders with, and do favors for, powerful people like the Clintons and Bushes, you advance up the political ladder. And Kavanaugh is about to advance almost as high as one can go. I highly recommend listening to this hard-hitting interview about Kavanaugh’s involvement in the Vince Foster cover-up conducted by Cliff Kincaide at America’s Survival Inc.
It is also worth noting that Kavanaugh wrote an opinion that was later used by Justice Roberts as a judicial justification for keeping Obamacare. In a lengthy article last week titled “How Potential SCOTUS Pick Brett Kavanaugh Wrote A Roadmap For Saving Obamacare,” Christopher Jacobs explained:
“Even as he avoided a definitive ruling on the merits of the case [in 2011], Kavanaugh revealed himself as favorably disposed to the [individual] mandate. Worst of all, in so doing, he cultivated a theory that ultimately led Chief Justice John Roberts to uphold the mandate. . . .
“In Kavanaugh’s view, the mandate could fit “comfortably” within Congress’ constitutional powers [to tax]. . . .
“Conservatives might argue amongst themselves about which is worse: An unelected judge opining on how a mandate to purchase a product could meet constitutional muster, or that same unelected judge giving Congress instructions on how to ensure it will. . . .
“The gambit worked. Roberts ultimately relied upon that argument from Verilli by way of Kavanaugh to uphold the mandate as a constitutional exercise of the taxing power. That Kavanaugh, like Roberts, used the last few pages of his opinion to decry the “unprecedented” nature of a mandate upheld via the Commerce Clause power does not mitigate his favorable analysis of a mandate upheld via the Taxing Clause power.”
I leave you to read the rest of the article for yourself. Suffice it to say, Kavanaugh has wrested the U.S. Constitution, massively expanding the Founding Fathers’ original intent regarding the taxing power to allow the federal government to punish (i.e. tax) individuals for not accepting government-controlled health care. Doing so led the Supreme Court to uphold the alleged constitutionality of Obamacare in 2012.
In fairness, let me briefly mention a few areas in which Judge Kavanaugh seems to be good. When it comes to religious issues and protection of religious worship, he appears sound (though, frankly, I dispute the depth of one’s religious conviction when I know they are not vehemently opposed to Roe V. Wade). Regarding immigration, what I’ve read so far indicates that Kavanaugh’s track record is appropriate. On the ever-contested issue of firearms, it seems Kavanaugh is also pretty consistent.
These three areas show that Kavanaugh is not 100% compromised. However, as the concerns I’ve raised should demonstrate, there are many red flags that ought to disqualify Kavanuagh as a serious contender for the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, however, President Trump disagrees.
Ultimately, this terrible nomination is a result of Trump’s own egregious lack of constitutional understanding, his naiveté and overreliance on the advice of his corrupt aides, and his lack of understanding of conspiracy and intrigue. As I said clear back in 2016, Trump is a puppet who doesn’t know he’s a puppet.
I don’t necessarily believe Trump is malicious. However, he is a man who is being manipulated by the people he puts around him and places confidence in. As he has demonstrated time and time again, it is easy to flatter and trick Trump and talk him out of his opinions. And since he is always looking to “make deals,” he is willing to compromise hard-and-fast principles in favor of mainstream, populist, lets-not-rock-the-boat policies. Thus, picking Kavanaugh – a Bush lackey and Establishment insider – was just “good business.” And it was also a tragically missed opportunity to put a true constitutionalist on the Supreme Court.
I sincerely hope I’m wrong about Judge Brett Kavanaugh and that, assuming he makes it to the Supreme Court, he will issue opinions harmonious with the U.S. Constitution. However, I don’t think a 53-year-old judge who has been in the business for so many years will suddenly change his stripes. I predict, if his nomination is approved, that he will continue to rule against the Fourth Amendment and uphold Court “precedent” in numerous areas that conflict with the founding ideals that made America the greatest nation in world history.
I truly believe, from the preliminary research I’ve done, that Judge Kavanaugh presents a danger to the Republic. He is a threat precisely because he belongs to and serves the insider clique that dominates Washington. If Trump truly wants to “drain the swamp,” why did he nominate a man bred and groomed in the swamp to the highest court in the land? Perhaps only time will tell what is to become of Kavanaugh, but I recommend watching him like a hawk and holding him strictly accountable, as we ought to hold all public servants accountable for their fidelity (or lack thereof) to the U.S. Constitution.
The American Citadel 