PELOSI’S “VIEW” ON ABORTION

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was recently asked to comment on abortion. Here is what she said.

“Yeah, I’m Catholic. I come from a pro-life family. Not active in that regard. Different in their view of a woman’s right to choose than I am. In my right to choose, I had five children in six years and one week. And I keep saying to people who say things like that, when you have five children in six years and one day, we can talk about what business it is of us to tell anyone else [what] to do. For us, it was a complete and total blessing, which we enjoy every day of our lives. But it is none of our business how other people choose the size and timing of their families.”

We responded with an analogy.

“Yeah, I’m Catholic. I come from an abolitionist family. Not active in that regard. Different in their view of a slavemaster’s right to choose than I am. In my right to choose, I bought five children in six years and one week. And I keep saying to people who say things like that, when you have bought five children in six years and one day, we can talk about what business it is of any of us to tell anyone else [what] to do. For us, it was a complete and total blessing, which we enjoy every day of our lives. But it is none of our business whether other people choose to own slaves.”

Those who oppose slavery and abortion rest their case on moral absolutes, not opinion. Pelosi’s moral relativism places her outside the Catholic community.




COLUMBUS BASHING IS UNWARRANTED

Prior to Columbus Day, we posted a three-part series on the degree to which politics has been infused into discussions about this holiday. We are offering a sample of our report in Catalyst; those who would like to read more about this subject should reference our website.

Origins of the Assault on Columbus

In the 1990s, Yale University gave up $20 million given to them by Lee M. Bass: he wanted the money spent on efforts to expand the Western civilization curriculum, but highly politicized members of the faculty wanted to replace it with a multicultural program. The faculty won and Bass got his money back.

The fact is that many professors, especially in the humanities and social sciences, hate Western civilization; they have a particular animus against the United States. That this is happening at a time when many poor people from Latin America are crashing our borders is perverse. Yet the pampered professors still keep railing against the U.S. They just don’t get it.

The attack on Columbus, and on Columbus Day, is traceable to the ideology of multiculturalism. Pope Benedict XVI correctly observed that multiculturalism has bred not only a contempt for the moral truths that adhere to the Judeo-Christian ethos, it has led to “a peculiar Western self-hatred that is nothing short of pathological.”

No intellectual is more responsible for distorting the historical record of Columbus than Howard Zinn. His 1980 book, A People’s History of the United States, sold millions of copies and has been the go-to book for left-wing faculty and students for decades. He is the inspiration behind the attacks on Columbus Day and the one most responsible for replacing it with Indigenous Peoples’ Day. The Zinn Education Project, which disseminates his work, is the force behind the Columbus bashing in the schools.

Zinn is falsely regarded as a man who hated oppression. He did so only selectively. He found it almost impossible to condemn atrocities committed by the Communist regimes of Stalin and Mao, owing, no doubt to his membership in the Communist Party. According to Ronald Radosh, one of the most prominent students of Communism, “Zinn was an active member of the Communist party (CPUSA)—a membership which he never acknowledged and when asked, denied.”

Mary Grabar, who wrote the definitive book exposing Zinn as a fraud, Debunking Howard Zinn, notes that there are plenty of glaring omissions in his writings. Zinn would never acknowledge what Carol Delaney, a Stanford University anthropologist had to say about Columbus. She maintained that Columbus acted on his Christian faith and told his crew to be kind to the Indians.

It is not as though Zinn was unaware of this side of Columbus—he just glossed over evidence that contradicted his thesis. Here’s a quote from Columbus he never mentions. “I want the natives to develop a friendly attitude toward us because I know that they are a people who can be made free and converted to our Holy Faith more by love than by force.”

Another one of the left-wing intellectuals who has contributed mightily to the assault on Western civilization is the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. In 1970, he released his bestselling book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

This is the kind of thinking that appeals to children and intellectuals. Children understand black and white, night and day, good guys and bad guys. Intellectuals do, too, the only difference is that they get to decide who the good guys are (the oppressed like Indians) and who the bad guys are (oppressors like Columbus).

Any objective scholar knows that the ideas of Marx and Lenin were put into play by Mao Zedong, Che Guevara, and Fidel Castro. To Freire, just like Zinn, they are his heroes. That’s right, the same man who is known for sympathizing with the oppressed adores some of history’s most vicious oppressors.

Mao murdered 77 million of his own people, yet according to Freire and his professor clones, China’s Communist genocidal maniac should be exalted and Columbus condemned.

To top things off, those who are bashing Columbus are simultaneously lauding the legacy of Indigenous peoples. Yet a closer, and independent, examination of their historical record raises serious questions about their assigned “oppressed” status. But given the Manichean dualism that is operative—the good guys are non-whites and the bad guys are white—the outcome is predictable.

Columbus Day or Indigenous Peoples’ Day

In 2019, the National Education Association (NEA) announced that it “believes that the history of colonization needs to be recognized and acknowledged in every state.” To that end, it said “the name of the current holiday known as ‘Columbus Day’ should be renamed and recognized as “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.” Its position remains unchanged.

The NEA was only partially successful. Some cities and states have adopted its stance, but many others have not.
On October 11, some schools were closed in observance of Columbus Day; some were closed in observance of Indigenous Peoples’ Day; some were closed in honor of both days; others recognized neither day and remained open.
This is not a healthy situation. A country that cannot agree on who to honor is in trouble. Worse, a country whose public officials take no action against those who destroy statues on public land of those who have made significant contributions to American society are sending the wrong message. When a nation’s historically renowned figures become part of our throw-away culture, it does not bode well for instilling patriotism in young people.

Judging past historical figures through today’s lens will likely mean that some of those in favor of excising tributes to legendary persons will themselves be erased from history. So be it.

The Dark Side of Indigenous Peoples

Serious historians know that when it comes to war, different parties to the conflict have had different motives, ranging from the just to the unjust. They also know that it is a rare occasion when all sides are equally innocent or guilty. To be sure, some may be more aggressive, but it is a mistake to assume that had the vanquished been in possession of the means to do so, they would not have been as vicious as the victors. Not all the losers in war were noble.

This needs to be said in light of what is now fashionable every October—Columbus bashing is all the rage. Just as bad, some promote the idea that virtually all the Indians were kindly souls who respected the land and treated each other with dignity. This is a romantic fairy tale having no basis in history. The truth is that some were gentle while others were brutal.

It is also part of the conventional wisdom that almost all the Indians were massacred by the white man. Wrong.

Renowned historian William D. Rubinstein, in his book, Genocide, writes that “recent historians sympathetic to the plight of the American Indians at the hands of European settlers from 1492 onwards have repeatedly noted that while 95 percent of Indians living in the Americas perished (according to those historians) over the century or so after the coming of the white man, most of this diminution in population occurred through such factors as the importation of virulent diseases previously unknown in the Americas, the destruction of settled life-styles, enslavement, and the psychological effects of conquest rather than through overt murders and slaughters, although plenty of these took place.”

On the flip side, we have some commentators who want to portray the Indians as savages who never contributed to America’s greatness. They, too, are wrong.

The Indians served with distinction in both World Wars. During the First World War they enlisted in the Army in greater numbers, proportionally, than non-Indians. In the Second World War, tribes with very strong warrior traditions volunteered, again with “disproportionate numbers.”

It should be noted that the term “Indigenous” is misleading. The Indians immigrated to the New World just like everyone else. In “prehistoric times,” they “crossed the land bridge across the Bering Strait to the lands of the Western Hemisphere.”

The following are a few examples of the ignoble practices of the Indians.

• The Navajo believed that witches ran rampant and caused all manner of destruction. This belief filled the tribe with a sense of fear and foreboding. To counteract this, anyone believed to be a witch (usually someone on the fringes of the tribe) faced violence and death. Frequently witches were scapegoats for anything that negatively impacted the tribe.
• The Chumash Indians, who lived on the Channel Islands off southern California, had an established class system in which the upper class owned slaves. Because the Chumash had no established agriculture, their food came from fishing, hunting, and gathering, they appeared to own slaves for no other purpose than for wealthy tribe members to flaunt their power.
• Among the Yanomamo, women were forbidden to have intercourse with their husbands throughout pregnancy and until the child was weaned. To avoid extended periods of celibacy, Yanomamo couples would kill their infants.
• Inuit adults encouraged children to kill small animals and birds by torturing these defenseless creatures to death. Even their sled dogs, vital to their ability to cross the vast icy expanses, were not spared abuse. Sled dogs were frequently kicked and abused for no reason. If a dog was injured during a journey across the tundra, the dog would be mercilessly beaten and then abandoned to die alone in the frozen wilderness. Although some have claimed that this might have been done to direct aggression away from humans and towards animals, the Inuit were prone to outbursts of lethal violence and killed one another at alarmingly high rates.
• The men of the Mehinaku tribe in Brazil frequently used threats of gang-rape to assert their dominance over their women.
• The Kwakuitl people of Canada practiced an extremely hierarchical society. About 15 percent of the population lived as slaves and the sole property of the chief. The chief’s family subsisted entirely off the labor of their slaves. The economic productivity of the tribe went primarily to the chief. Further, the Kwakuitl would war with neighboring tribes to capture more slaves.
• The Aztecs sacrificed as many as 250,000 people per year to appease their blood-thirsty gods. Victims had their beating hearts ripped out of their chests, and their corpses were eaten by the Aztec nobility. Most of the sacrificial victims were either prisoners of war or tribute from surrounding tribes.




JEFFERSON STATUE REMOVED FROM NYC OFFICE

On October 18, New York City officials voted unanimously to remove a 7-foot-tall statue of Thomas Jefferson from the chambers of the New York City Council in City Hall. Perversely, the person most responsible for declaring Jefferson a racist is himself a racist, New York State Assemblyman Charles Barron. What should they do with the Jefferson statue? “I think it should be put in storage or destroyed or whatever,” he said.

Barron started his activist career as a member of the Black Panthers, a racist organization. The ADL, which tracks anti-Semitism, says he “has associated with anti-Semitic hate groups and promoted extreme anti-Israel positions intended to demonize the Jewish state since his election [to the City Council] in 2001.”

The ADL does not exaggerate. Barron said in 2009, “Gaza is a virtual death camp, the same kind of conditions the Nazis imposed on the Jews.” He also defended Louis Farrakhan, the vicious anti-Semite, claiming he is not a racist.

Barron’s loathing of white people once provoked him to do more than just get in their face. “You know some days I get so frustrated I just want to go up to the closest white person and say, ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing,’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.”

Though Barron argues that Jefferson oppressed people, he himself has embraced some of the most notorious oppressors on earth. At a ceremony honoring Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi, a known terrorist, he called him his “hero” and an “African freedom fighter.” Similarly, he supported Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwean president who was accused of atrocities in his home country.

Barron has also worked against his own people by opposing charter public schools for blacks. His opposition to raising academic standards at the City University of New York also belied a conviction that blacks could not compete with whites. Worse, in 2011, when 12 failing public schools were slated to close, he showed up at a hearing not to protest the schools, but the decision to shut them down.

As to be expected, Barron refuses to salute the American flag and is opposed to the Pledge of Allegiance.

If Barron knew anything about history, he would know that when Jefferson owned slaves, slavery was commonplace all over the world. While slavery was made illegal in the U.S. in 1865, it was not made illegal in Africa until 1981, and it still exists there in some countries.

No one put in motion the end to slavery in the United States more than Jefferson. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, detailing the principles by which the cause for civil rights could proceed.

When the Declaration and the Constitution were written, there would have been no union had there not been a compromise with the slave states. Most students today do not know that it was written into the Constitution that the international slave trade would end on January 1, 1808. The president who made good on that pledge was Thomas Jefferson.

Indeed, two years earlier, in his annual address to Congress, our third president called for the “criminalization of international slave trade” on the first possible date. The following year he signed into law the provision that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the U.S.

Some have said that Jefferson fathered slave children with Sally Hemings. The fact is there is no existing DNA of Jefferson available. The DNA that was used in tests to settle this controversy came from descendants of Field Jefferson, his uncle. Any one of two dozen Jeffersons could have been the father of Hemings’ 5th child.

Perhaps the most insulting aspect of this assault on Jefferson is the fact that had it not been for him, Martin Luther King would have gotten nowhere. King called the Declaration a “promissory note,” one that black folks could use to leverage their rights. No, all men in the late 18th century were not treated as equals, but thanks to Jefferson, they knew they were “created” equal, and could therefore pursue their rights.

Nowhere in the world at that time had any country had anything like the Declaration, which is why slavery was considered unobjectionable. Not to acknowledge this is pure ignorance.

In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King quotes Jefferson’s phrase, “all men are created equal.” That was his inspiration. He called on blacks to continue “standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

King succeeded because he had a mature understanding of history. He also knew how to mobilize his people to achieve freedom, leaning on the principles of liberty encoded in the Declaration.
Jefferson had his failings. But without his contribution, the progress that has been made in realizing freedom for everyone would not have been made. That is his true legacy. Shame on those too myopic, and too saddled with their own bigoted lens, not to see it.




SO WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN, MR. PRESIDENT?

“Life begins at conception, that’s the Church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.” That is what Vice President Joe Biden said in 2012, echoing what he said in 2008.

“I respect those who believe life begins at the moment of conception. I don’t agree, but I respect that.” That is what President Biden said recently.

The science did not change, Mr. Biden, and neither has the Catholic Church’s teaching on this subject. So why did you?

If life does not begin at conception, Mr. Biden, then when does it begin?

Does life begin when the baby’s spinal cord, nervous system, gastrointestinal system, heart and lungs develop? That would be during the first four weeks from conception.

Does it begin when the heart begins to beat? That would be four weeks after conception.

Does it begin when the baby’s head develops? That would be five weeks after conception.

Does it begin when the baby’s nose forms and his or her fingers begin to develop? That would be six weeks after conception.

Does it begin when the baby’s toes appear? That would be seven weeks after conception.

Does it begin when the baby’s elbows bend? That would be eight weeks after conception.

Does it begin when the baby’s genitals develop? That would be nine weeks after conception.

Does it begin when the baby’s fingernails form? That would be ten weeks after conception.

Does it begin when the baby kicks, can hear, has a strong grip and a strong heartbeat? That would be during the second trimester.

Does it begin at birth?

Does it begin sometime after birth?

When, Mr. Biden, does life begin? And why is science, and the teachings of your religion, wrong on this subject? Where is your evidence, Mr. Biden, that they are wrong? We need to know as this is literally a matter of life and death.




SLANDERING ST. SERRA

The California legislature recently passed a bill that was based on a vicious lie: it contends that St. Junípero Serra was responsible for the mass murder of Indians in the 18th century. The purpose of the bill is to replace a statue of Serra at the Capitol in Sacramento with a new monument that celebrates the indigenous population. It was sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom for him to sign.

The bill is not only based on bad history, it is a slanderous attack on the one man who actually did stand up for the rights of Indians at the time.

Here’s what it says: “Enslavement of both adults and children, mutilation, genocide, and assault on women were all part of the mission period initiated and overseen by Father Serra.”

In 2014, a year before Pope Francis canonized Serra, Bill Donohue read many books on the priest. He did so knowing that some of the Church’s detractors would exploit the occasion in 2015, seeking to blame Serra for the offenses committed by the Spaniards. The result was the publication of a monograph, “The Noble Legacy of Father Serra.” (It can be found on the Catholic League’s website; a shorter version is also available.)

Known as the greatest missionary in U.S. history, Serra traveled 24,000 miles, baptizing and confirming thousands of persons, mostly Indians (in 1777 the Vatican authorized the Franciscan priest to administer the sacrament of confirmation, usually the reserve of the bishop). He had one goal—to facilitate eternal salvation for the Indians of North America.

Not only did Serra not initiate or approve the inhumane treatment of the Indians, he led the protests against it. Importantly, the Spanish Crown ultimately agreed with his position.

Some of the Spanish colonizers did mistreat the Indian women. But Serra not only objected, he took specific measures to stem the tide of abuse.

Charging Serra with genocide is obscene. Genocide is what Hitler did to the Jews. Serra never killed anyone. Those making this mind-boggling accusation are literally creating a narrative that has no basis in fact. Hitler put Jews in ovens; the missionaries put the Indians to work, paying them for their labor.

Serra employed Indians as teachers, and the missionaries taught them how to be masons, carpenters, blacksmiths, and painters. They were also taught how to sell and buy animals, and were allowed to keep their bounty. Women were taught spinning, knitting, and sewing.

Does this sound like the Nazis?

Professor Gregory Orfalea, author of Journey to the Sun: Junípero Serra’s Dream and the Founding of California, published by Scribner in 2014, writes that “To the Indian, he [Serra] was loving, enthusiastic, and spiritually and physically devoted.”

Salvatore J. Cordileone and Jose H. Gomez, the archbishops of San Francisco and Los Angeles, respectively, wrote a great piece on St. Serra in the Wall Street Journal. They recommend that the statue of Serra, which was torn down last year during the riots and is now in storage, be returned to the state’s Capitol, along with a new monument honoring the indigenous Californians.

The bill sent to Gov. Newsom is the product of disinformation promoted by Black Lives Matter. It is propaganda, not scholarship.

We enlisted our email subscribers to contact Gov. Newsom about this outrageous bill.




THOUGHT CONTROL IN SCHOOLS MUST END

The Virginia Supreme Court made a wise decision when it said it would not accept a challenge to a lower court ruling that required Loudoun County Public Schools to reinstate a teacher who was punished for not acknowledging that boys can be girls, and vice versa.

The victim in this case, Tanner Cross, argued that his Christian convictions did not permit him to lie about sex transitioning. He knows it is child abuse. So does every honest person who knows anything about the subject, which unfortunately excludes many in the healthcare profession and education.

The school district violated this teacher’s freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion. It had the gall to maintain that Cross was suspended not for his speech but for the “disruption” he caused at a school board meeting in May.

He was being sanctioned because of what civil libertarian Harry Kalven once called the “heckler’s veto.” In short, this means that those who are upset about someone’s speech can effectively veto his First Amendment right by holding him responsible for their planned, or actual, disruptive behavior.

This is not a matter of speculation. In 1949, the U.S. Supreme Court overthrew the conviction of a suspended Catholic priest who gave an incendiary speech in Chicago. A riot took place outside the hall where he spoke, and he was held accountable for the mob’s behavior. The high court overturned his conviction. Had it not done so, it would have been the death knell to robust speech of any kind.

There was another dustup in June in Loudoun County when parents objected to the adoption of critical race theory (CRT). School officials mandated, without offering any proof that there was a problem with racism in the district, that all teachers accept the racist dogma associated with this ideology.

An economist who lives in this area, Max B. Sawicky, recently defended the school district for ordering teachers to abide by CRT. In an article posted by The New Republic, he lashed out at parents and teachers who objected to it. He denied that CRT was racist. He is wrong.

“White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” Those are the words of Robin DiAngelo, one of the gurus of this pernicious brand of hate speech.

Ironically, those who live in Loudoun are mostly white privileged people, the very ones seen as racists by CRT activists. Sawicky brags that “Loudoun is one of the richest counties in the United States,” where “Joe Biden received 62 percent of the vote.”

These are precisely the kind of people who are most likely to deny that there are only two sexes. Not surprisingly, Sawicky berates “Christian fundamentalist teachers” who object to having their religious rights abrogated by sexually confused elites. He also rails against “anti-CRT fanatics” who object to branding all white people as racists.

More important, there is no shortage of left-wing totalitarians who want to use the power of the state to dictate how people think about transgenderism and CRT. Their penchant for thought control makes these people the most dangerous segment in American society today. They need to be resisted and defeated.




NEW YORK TIMES OBJECTS TO CHAOS!

No newspaper in the country likes protests more than the New York Times. There is a qualifier, though, as made clear in the September 8th edition.

Michelle Cottle is a member of the editorial board of the New York Times. “Chaos at the School Board Meeting” is the title of her editorial-page column. She does not like chaos. To be more precise, she does not like the politics of those creating chaos at school board meetings, many of whom object to mask mandates and left-wing exercises in thought control.

Cottle opens her diatribe with this screamer, “America’s school board meetings are out of control.” What’s wrong with that? After all, the Times all but cheered Black Lives Matter and Antifa last year when they took to the streets engaging in mayhem. These thugs took part in over 600 riots, resulting in a considerable loss of life and property.

Why is “chaos” at school board meetings objectionable, but not the truly “out of control” violence of Black Lives Matter and Antifa?

Cottle cites as an example of school board “chaos” the meetings in Loudoun County, Virginia. She says, quite rightly, that critical race theory and a transgender-laden curriculum have “drawn the wrath of parents.” With good reason.

Unlike her, these “chaotic” parents object to teachers being forced to accept the racist dogma that defines critical race theory. They also object to teachers being punished for refusing to call a boy a girl, and vice versa (the school was forced by the courts to reinstate the teacher). Another problem for Cottle are parents who worry about their children being “indoctrinated or otherwise manipulated” by educators. What she says is actually worse than this—the indoctrination is in full swing at our nation’s leading colleges and universities.

The good news is that Cottle and her colleagues admit that conservative parents are pushing back against highly politicized school boards. If there is one good thing that the pandemic has wrought, it is a new awareness on the part of previously unsuspecting parents of the extent to which education is being corrupted by left-wing ideologues.
What the New York Times fears most is “power to the people.”




GARLAND SMEARS PRO-LIFE ACTIVISTS

The controversy over a Texas pro-life law has led some to make irresponsible remarks, and no one has topped Attorney General Merrick Garland. The law, which forbids doctors from performing an abortion on a mother carrying a baby whose heartbeat can be detected, provoked Garland to make totally unfounded claims of violence on the part of pro-life activists.

On September 6th, Garland said, “We will not tolerate violence against those seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services, physical obstruction or property damage in violation of the FACE Act.” This indictment of pro-life activists is without merit. Indeed, it is a despicable smear against them.

If pro-life Americans are so violent, Garland should be able to rattle off the names of abortionists whom they have killed. In the 21st century, there have been four such killings: one in 2009 and three in 2015. Two men, both ex-cons, were responsible, and neither was assisted or associated with a pro-life group. They acted alone.

In 2009, Dr. George Tiller was killed by Scott Roeder. When it happened, Bill Donohue condemned it. “We have to get the message out that life means we have to respect all life,” he told CBS Evening News, “including somebody as bad as Dr. Tiller was.”

Tiller, by his own admission, performed over 60,000 abortions. His specialty was killing babies in utero who were nearly born, or were partially born. Hence his nickname, George “The Killer” Tiller.

Roeder was a deranged man who was hardly representative of pro-life activists. He had been diagnosed as schizophrenic, and got into trouble when he stopped taking his medication. His wife testified that she thought he was bipolar, and his brother also spoke about his mental problems. He had previously been arrested for carrying explosives, and he spent time in prison for other violations.

In 2015, Robert Lewis Dear Jr. killed three people in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He had previously been arrested and convicted for carrying a “long blade knife” and illegal possession of a loaded gun.

His mental state was worse than that of Roeder’s. A judge ordered him to undergo a mental competency exam to see if he was sufficiently competent to represent himself. After fielding the results, the judge ruled that Dear was not mentally fit to stand trial: he cited findings that he suffered from a “delusional disorder.” Dear was sentenced indefinitely to a Colorado state mental hospital.

It makes no sense for anyone who champions the abortion-rights cause to worry about being killed because of the Texas law. Roeder and Dear were lone wolves, both of whom had a criminal record and mental problems.

Garland, being a pro-abortion proponent who works for our “devout Catholic” pro-abortion president, has been noticeably silent on threats against pro-life activists. Yet just this summer innocent pro-life Catholic demonstrators were harassed by pro-abortion militants in Brooklyn, New York, and a Catholic church in Louisville, Colorado was defaced with pro-abortion slogans.

On September 13th, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who dismissed a challenge to the Texas law, was subjected to intimidation when his home was descended upon by pro-abortion activists. This came following a threat by extremists from ShutDownDC to “directly” confront Kavanaugh and his family.

If Garland were even-handed, he would know that pro-life Americans have been violently attacked and been subjected to death threats for many years. There have been bomb threats against Catholic churches, firebombings of Catholic school busses with pro-life signs, calls for violence against pro-lifers on college campuses, and widespread acts of church vandalism.

And lest we forget, while the killing of unborn babies is legal, the fact remains that abortion clinics are a much more deadly place for children than they are for those who do the killing. Think about that, Mssrs. Garland and Biden.




MEDIA EXPLOIT THE POPE AGAIN

It is not the Catholic Church that is obsessed with sex, it is the media.

Of the six questions Pope Francis was asked aboard the papal plane on September 15, half were on sex: there were two questions on homosexuality and one on abortion. Yet the pope was not returning from a conference on sexuality and the family—he was returning from Budapest and Slovakia after addressing issues that had absolutely nothing to do with the media’s obsession.

Most media accounts said nothing about the pope’s comments on homosexuality, and they gave brief mention to his remarks on abortion. That’s because most in the big media strongly disagree with the Catholic Church’s teachings on these issues. Therefore, we will tell you what the media will not.

When asked about “the recognition of homosexual marriages,” Pope Francis was quite blunt. “Marriage is a sacrament, the Church has no power to change the sacraments as the Lord has instituted them.” In reference to civil unions, which are open to many parties, not just homosexuals, he said he understands that “the States have the possibility civilly to support them.” What he said next was salient. “But marriage is marriage.”

The pope continued with his comments on homosexual marriages. “The Lord is good, he desires the salvation of all, but please, don’t make the Church deny its truth,” he said. “Many people with a homosexual orientation approach penance, they seek counsel from the priests, the Church helps them, but the sacrament of marriage is something else.”

The pope was even more precise when he spoke about abortion.

“It’s more than a problem, it’s murder, whoever has an abortion kills, no half words. Take any book on embryology for medical students. The third week after conception, all the organs are already there, even the DNA…it is human life, this human life must be respected, this principle is so clear! To those who cannot understand, I would ask this question: is it right to kill a human life to solve a problem? Is it right to hire a hitman to kill a human life? Scientifically it is a human life. Is it right to take it out to solve a problem? That is why the Church is so hard on this issue, because if it accepts this it would be like accepting daily murder.”

While the media downplayed the pope’s comments on some subjects, they gave much profile to his statement on pro-abortion politicians in the United States. He was asked about the propriety of them receiving Communion.

However, the brief statement that Pope Francis made on this subject lacked the clarity of what he said about homosexual marriage and abortion. Regrettably, this allowed the media to spin his words to suit their politics.

The pope acknowledged that there are Catholics who are “not in the community” and therefore “cannot take Communion.” He certainly made plain his preference for priests to address this issue in a pastoral manner, but his comments were anything but precise.

“I am not very familiar with the details of the United States…But if you’re close, tender, and give Communion? It’s a hypothesis. The pastor knows what to do at all times. But if you go beyond the pastoral dimension of the Church you become a politician, and you can see this in all the non-pastoral condemnations of the Church.”
The media were not put off by his rambling response. Instead, they seized upon it to defend their man, Joe Biden.

“Pope: No Place for Politics in Biden Communion Flap.” This headline, courtesy of the Associated Press, was picked up by literally dozens of media outlets across the nation. But is it accurate? At best, it was a stretch; at worst, it was dishonest. However, the media know that many people only read the headline, so they have a vested interest in spinning things their way. In short, the pope’s ambiguous remarks were quickly given clarity by his fans in the media.
The media do not want American bishops to criticize, much less sanction, pro-abortion Catholics such as President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They know that if their favorite politicians are tagged as Catholic phonies, it will hurt their ideological agenda. So they jump at every chance to protect them, even if it means twisting the pope’s words. It’s really not hard to figure out.

We have seen this game played many times before. When the pope says something the media don’t like, such as on homosexual marriage and abortion, they either don’t report it or they give it short shrift. But when he says something they like—or when his imprecise language gives them an opening to interpret things their way—they give it much attention.

The media have been using Pope Francis from the beginning of his pontificate. He doesn’t deserve this treatment from anyone, especially not from those who identify as objective journalists.




THE PATHOLOGY OF TRANSGENDERISM

We recently released a report (see our website) on the problems associated with males and females who “transition” to the opposite sex. Here are some of our findings.

Physical Damage

• There are no medical criteria to determine if a child needs to undergo transition procedures.

• According to the Mayo Clinic “Feminizing hormone therapy” (the process of a male taking female hormones) comes with risks and complications including:
–A blood clot in a deep vein (deep vein thrombosis) or in a lung (pulmonary embolism)
–High triglycerides, a type of fat (lipid) in your blood
–Weight gain
–Infertility
–High potassium (hyperkalemia)
–High blood pressure (hypertension)
–Type 2 diabetes
–Cardiovascular disease
–Excessive prolactin in your blood (hyperprolactinemia)
–Nipple discharge
–Stroke
–Increased risk of breast cancer

• Taking female hormones can cause lasting damage in men. The risk of permanent infertility increases with long-term use of hormones, especially when hormone therapy is initiated before puberty. Even after stopping hormone therapy, testicular function might not recover sufficiently to ensure conception.

• According to the Mayo Clinic “Masculinizing hormone therapy” (the process of a female taking male hormones) comes with risks and complications including:
–Producing too many red blood cells (polycythemia)
–Weight gain
–Acne
–Developing an abnormal level of cholesterol and other lipids, which may increase cardiovascular risk (dyslipidemia)
–High blood pressure (hypertension)
–Type 2 diabetes
–Deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism (venous thromboembolism)
–Infertility
–A condition where the lining of the vagina becomes drier and thinner (atrophic vaginitis)
–Pelvic pain
–Clitoral discomfort and vaginal atrophy
–Endometrial and other forms of cancer

• Taking male hormones can cause lasting damage in women. The risk of permanent infertility increases with long-term use of hormones, especially when hormone therapy is initiated before puberty. Even after stopping hormone therapy, ovarian and uterine function might not recover well enough to ensure that a woman can become pregnant.

• Testosterone is a Schedule III controlled substance. It has serious health risks as noted above. However, to treat gender dysphoria, it is used by some as a cosmetic procedure rather than something requiring strict medical oversight. Some gender therapists administer the drug based on what the patient is feeling. In terms of a set dose, the only goal most medical professionals have is to keep the testosterone in the normal limit for a man.

• According to the British National Health Service (NHS): “Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be. It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations.”

• Lupron, a drug once used in chemical castrations, is a popular puberty blocker. Lupron has caused neurological damage resulting in impaired pituitary function. The pituitary is the major endocrine gland in the brain and is important in controlling growth and development and the functioning of other endocrine glands. The effect on the pituitary was not reversible for 62.5% of patients. While the FDA has approved this drug to halt precocious puberty, it is not approved to halt normal puberty nor is it approved for long-term use. Lupron is now prescribed off-label.

• Puberty blockers are not a neutral intervention. Although some gender therapists present them as a safe alternative to buy time to allow for a child to determine his or her gender identity, halting puberty is unhealthy. Side effects include suppression of normal bone density development, greater risk of osteoporosis, loss of sexual function, interference with brain development and possibly suppressing peak IQ. Additionally, these drugs alienate a child from his or her sex. Further, in some instances after a child stops taking them puberty does not resume even if they wanted it to. One clinical study found that 100% of participants who used puberty blockers ultimately underwent a full transition.

• Binders, a devise used frequently by teenage girls that constrict their breasts tight against the body to give them a more masculine appearance, can cause serious harm. Broken or bruised ribs, punctured or collapsed lungs, shortness of breath, back pain, and deformation of breast tissue can result from wearing these devices.

• In women, top surgery, or a double mastectomy, leads to a permanent loss of breast function and comes with the risks of complication associated with any surgical procedure.

• In women, bottom surgery, either phalloplasty or metoidioplasty, are extremely complex procedures that can result in complications.
–In phalloplasty, doctors take a graft and create a new appendage in the groin area. Blood clots and infections are common. Additionally, the forearms, where most of the grafts are from for this procedure, can also suffer significant damage permanently leaving an individual unable to fully use their arms. Usually, the urethra will be run through the appendage; however, this is not without its own share of hazards, most especially leaks both internally and externally.
–Metoidioplasty involves the clitoris to be shaped to look like a penis, though it has no functionality other than the urethra can be run through it allowing for urination.


Psychological Damage

• When no intervention is made 70% of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of it on their own.

• The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) lists eight conditions that are associated with gender dysphoria in children. A child is diagnosed with this condition if they meet six of them. They are:
–A strong desire to be of the other gender or insistence that one is the other gender
–A strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating [other gender] attire
–A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make believe play or fantasy play
–A strong preference for the toys, games, or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender
–A strong preference for playmates of the other gender
–A strong rejection of toys, games and activities typically associated with birth sex
–A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy
–A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender

• Most of the adolescent girls claiming to be transgender did not show any signs of these conditions in childhood. Further, social media can influence and coach these girls to say they meet the DSM-5 criteria for gender dysphoria and begin their treatment.

• The BBC reported on a study that showed some children taking puberty blockers reported an increase in thoughts of suicide and self-harm.

• “It showed that after a year on puberty blockers, there was a significant increase found in those answering the statement ‘I deliberately try to hurt or kill myself.'”

• A study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine “found that 80 percent of gender minority students report having mental health problems, nearly double the rate of ‘cisgender’ students.”

• Renowned psychiatrist, Paul McHugh, said, “I believe that these gender confusions are mostly being driven by psychological and psychosocial problems these people have.”

• Professor Lisa Littman, a researcher at Brown University published a report “suggesting that some transgender-identified children might suffer from ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria,’ a phenomenon in which ‘one, multiple, or even all of the friends [in a group] have become gender dysphoric and transgender-identified during the same timeframe.'” She believes that transgender identity is a social contagion. Littman hypothesized three things worked as the contagion:
–The belief that non-specific symptoms should be perceived as gender dysphoria and that their presence is proof of being transgender
–The belief that the only path to happiness is transition
–The belief that anyone who disagrees with the self-assessment of being transgender or opposes the plan for transition is transphobic, abusive, and should be cut off

• According to Littman’s study:
–Over 80% of the adolescents were natal females, with a mean age of 16.4.
–Most were living at home with their parents when they announced they were transgender.
–The vast majority had zero indicators of childhood gender dysphoria, and universally they failed to meet six of the criteria the DSM-5 requires to diagnose a child with gender dysphoria.
–A majority had had one or more psychiatric diagnosis and almost half were engaging in self-harm prior to the onset of gender dysphoria.
–41% had expressed non-heterosexual sexual orientation before identifying as transgender.
–47.4% had been formally assessed as academically gifted.
–Nearly 70% of the teenagers belonged to a social group in which at least one friend came out as transgender, and in some groups the majority of the friends had come out as transgender.
–Over 65% of teens had increased their social media use and time spent online immediately prior to the announcement of transgender identity.
–Among parents who knew their children’s social status, over 60% said the announcement brought a popularity boost.
–Over 90% of parents surveyed were white.
–Over 70% of parents surveyed had earned bachelor’s or graduate degrees.
–Over 85% of parents reported supporting the rights of gay couples to marry.
–Over 88% of parents surveyed reported being supportive of transgender rights.
–Nearly 64% of parents had been called “transphobic” or “bigoted” by their children for such reasons as: disagreeing with the child about the child’s self-assessment as being transgender, recommending that the child should take more time to figure out if the child’s feelings of gender dysphoria persisted, calling the child the wrong pronouns, telling their child that hormones or surgeries were unlikely to help, calling their child by his or her birth name, or recommending that the child work on other underlying mental health issues before undergoing medical transition.
–Fewer than 13% of parents believed that their adolescents’ mental health had improved after transgender identification, and over 47% reported that their mental health worsened.

• A study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that “More than half of transgender male teens [girl to boy] who participated in the survey reported attempting suicide in their lifetime, while 29.9 percent of transgender female teens [boy to girl] said they attempted suicide. Among non-binary youth [those who identify as neither], 41.8 percent of respondents stated that they had attempted suicide at some point in their lives.”

• In a paper published by the American Journal of Psychiatry it was reported that “sex-reassignment procedures–both hormonal and surgical–do not bring the promised mental health benefits.”

• The authors point out that on one score–treatment for anxiety disorders–patients who had sex-reassignment surgeries did worse than those who did not. “Individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had received gender-affirming surgery were more likely to be treated for anxiety disorders compared with individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had not received gender-affirming surgery.”

• The study in the American Journal of Psychiatry also found that transgender individuals who had received a diagnosis of gender incongruence were:
–six times more likely to have a mood or anxiety disorder than the general population
–three times as likely to be prescribed antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications
–more than six times as likely to attempt suicide resulting in hospitalization

• Therapists usually practice gender affirmation. In other words, if a girl thinks she is a boy, therapists believe it is in the best interest of the child to affirm this. There is little evidence to suggest that this approach actually resolves the issues of gender dysphoria. Further, this approach is usually adopted without parental consent.

• Gender therapists tend to believe that adolescents know who they are. Rather than working to resolve underlying conditions that may cause gender dysphoria, they take the minor’s word as fact, and begin a treatment regiment based on what the adolescent believes.

• Gender therapists will essentially hold parents emotionally hostage by informing them that if they do not embrace their adolescents’ beliefs about gender dysphoria then their children will kill themselves. Rather than actively working to end self-harming behavior, therapists will use it to push the adolescents further down the path to transitioning.

• Gender therapists generally believe that gender identity is immutable and there is no way to convert a child out of a transgender identity. So instead of helping children move past their gender dysphoria, as they would 70% of the time without intervention, therapists believe there is no alternative to embracing the identity and moving forward with transition procedures.

• Many have described the transgender community, particularly its online presence, as a cult. They will constantly push one another further down the path of transition in the pursuit of a more genuine and authentic transgender lifestyle. Frequently, in social media postings, transgender influencers praise one another for how hardcore they are as they mutilate their bodies. Anyone perceived to have reservations about taking the plunge risks being perceived as less committed to the lifestyle, and not fully onboard.

• A 2020 study conducted by Britain’s National Health Service found a relationship between increased media coverage of transgender issues and rising number of teenagers, primarily girls, requesting sex changes. Journalists glorify medical transitions and present them to adolescent readers of celebrity publications as a solution to depression, anxiety and panic attacks. This is very appealing to adolescent girls, who traditionally have higher degrees of depression and anxiety than their male counterparts and were more adversely impacted by social isolation during the lockdown.

• During the isolation of lockdown, anxiety and depression grew in many girls. Last year, they followed an increasingly familiar pattern of rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria. It typically starts by transgender activists on Reddit, Tumblr, and YouTube promoting a transgender identity as a cure to all their problems. This then leads to the girls forming a new gender identity which schools then eagerly affirm. Any objections are treated as “transphobic.”